That depends what age they are. Putting it quite bluntly: a lot of people are holding off having children until later in life and, while they may not have 'left it too late', it can take a lot more sex to have children than when they were younger.

So which is better? A metaverse or an omniverse?

On the one hand omni includes the whole ~verse, but on the other, meta is above or beyond the ~verse everything.

:-/ confused

The scientists want to terraform Mars into Earth because we're currently terraforming Earth into Mars.

... with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. ... If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Plenty of mirrorless cameras use shutters. The Fuji range (I have an x100) use leaf shutters built into the lens which offers many, many advantages in addition to protecting the sensor from light. They're almost completely silent and have incredibly high flash sync speeds - so fast you can shoot with on-camera fill flash in bright daylight. Normally that would be 10k+ watts of strobe gear with a regular DSLR.

But most importantly is that a mirror camera has the lens quite a distance from the sensor (or film) which is why DSLR lenses are so complicated. You need extra glass (elements and groups) to correct for the distance, then more glass to correct for aberration etc caused by the extra glass. That's more expense and weight. And more aspheric elements.

The lens of a mirrorless camera can be right next to the sensor, which means it can be of a much simpler design therefore - for a given price - a mirrorless lens is higher quality than a DSLR lense. It's why rangefinder cameras like Leica's were popular back in the day. Razor sharp lenses, but quite simple as they didn't need to accommodate the space of a flapping mirror.

I go back to Primer 2004 again and again. A mind-bending science fiction film who's idea of visual effects are some cheap tents in a self storage warehouse yet captivates from start to finish.

*Disclaimer - I work in VFX*

The issue with anything that's expensive in film is that people get paranoid about wasting the money and want to plan shots to the N-th degree. Which wrings the last drop of creativity and spontaneity out of the shoot.

With VFX, the shooting order isn't just 'Storyboard' > ''Acting rehearsal, Set design, Blocking" > "Shoot". There's a 'previz' stage after storyboarding which means they plan every shot in excruciating detail and replicate it in 3D before shooting the plates. Then edit the previz together into an animatic to previsualise every VFX sequence before principal photography.

In VFX-heavy blockbusters, things end up with the tail wagging the dog. A bunch of VFX vendors, being paid a huge chunk of the budget, start to dictate how the film will develop. And a director telling VFX to revise things for creative reasons results in the VFX equivalent of a domestic plumber shaking his head and saying 'ooh, you don't wanna do that, that'll be expensive'.

Friends often say to me 'why didn't they spend a tenth of the VFX budget writing a proper script'. But the VFX dept has already made changing things for creative reasons into turning a supertanker at sea.

(And don't even get me started on the fact that VFX isn't even unionized, which is why the 500+ vfx roles end up right at the end of the credits after 'drivers', 'caterers', 'genny operator', 'greensman' (gardener), 'insurance' etc.

And the second one, based on a painting on the back of her jacket, will be titled "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO YOU?"

Ironically that is exactly what state Rep. Peter Merideth said about Gov. Mike Parson's cost of fixing the website flaw. Parson claimed the flaw would cost $50 million to fix.

This is the exact analogy. But in an attack video Gov. Parson described it like this:

So to 'Parson-ize' the door analogy:

Is this a trick question?

If they're only working two hours a day they might be lucky enough to not even be on the call.

Sassy Justice asked Michael Caine and he said 'watch with your ears'. Wise words for all of us.

Fred Sassy:

Michael Caine:

The real parallel would be the Synthetic Credit Default Option market leading up to the 2008 crash.

In a dark market, the contents of the Synthetic financial instrument is unknown. Which is how 'good' synthetic derivitives can be sliced and diced with risky ones and turned into new derivitives (the 2007-8 CDO-squared derivitives) which are even harder to value. Then if the market appears to be turning sour, the bank (a.k.a. Goldman) can offload those onto unsuspecting investors so they end up holding no risk.

Goldman have a head-start in setting up that sort of scenario, since they successfully road-tested it in 2007-2008. But at that time they needed to use creativity to invent new accounting terms to make the CDO portfolios hard to understand to investors.

This time around the bank's job is made easier, because investors already believe that, unlike housing stock, they don't understand the underlying crypto assets.

If we can elimate the "bus factor", I do have a list of team-mates that need to be hit by one.