I don't agree. DSLR isn't "very dead", although it is (very) slowly dying.

I say this as a proud DSLR owner that got my latest DSLR body just two years ago. I am sad that the manufacturer announced that they will not make any new models but I understand their business decision. Still, this body will most likely last at least as long as my last one (I think it was 16 years), which means into my retirement age. The only reason for buying another one is that the newer model is so much better, not that the old one stopped working (I still have it as a backup body, as I have the previous one). In fact, I expect my old cameras to work as long as I can get batteries for them since I don't use them enought to wear out the mechanics. Buying this camera was more of a splurge than a necessity, but what should I spend my money on if not my hobbies.

But eventually these DSLRs will end up in the graveyard with no replacements to be found. Mirrorless has their advantages with fewer moving parts and smaller design. I like the ka-chunk of my hefty DSLR but it weighs a ton to carry around. My old lenses can probably work with adapters for future generations of cameras, but ultimately the dedicated lenses will be more convenient.

This slow death is really slow though, and there might even be a revival where some company do a retro version for old enthusiasts, like film and vinyl have made their comebacks. But it will be a niche market. I will probably be long gone when the last DSLR leaves this planet. I just don't expect to see that many new DLR photographers in the coming generations, most likely only those that inherited their grandparents cameras. Those that want a new dedicated camera will go mirrorless, and those that used simple point-and-shoot compacts have been using smartphones for quite some time now.

BS. Dodging, burning and using masks to bring out underexposed parts of an image has been not only accepted but widely taught methods for printmaking since photography prints were invented. Go look at any textbook for making photographic prints. Local contrast adjustments are not under the "photographic manipulation" heading.

When I did my first wedding photography gig (in black and white) I could not get the print to show both the embroideries in the white wedding dress and the shades in the black grooms jacket without serious darkroom work. I added nothing to the picture, just brought out the information that was already there.

But I definitely did local adjustements, global adjustments wouldn't have helped at all since the range of the photographic paper is limited.

I would like them to try. Ask the current chatbots a question and the exact same phrasing will give different answers.

So our language is not specific enough to convey the information needed to deterministically program a computer with the help of transformationa AI. To solve this we need to create a subset of a natural language. Voilá! We have Yet Another Programming Language for AIs (YAPL-AI).

And even if you could achieve this, what about debugging? If a human is to correct hard to find errors, they need programming experience but now no-one should have that since the AI is doing the job for us.

We should probably think twice about outsourcing too much. Some sectors are feeling the problem with having certain production in certain countries. What will happen when they realize that the AI didn't solve everything and you need human experts, only they no longer exist?

So when you run out of made up stuff and hypocricy, you accuse others of ranting? Well played, good sir. [slow clap]

You truly have won the Internet today.

I hope you come back in the future and enlighten us with your profound insigths so we, the meek and uninformed, can bask in all your glorious.

FFS! Yes, Apple is bundling a browser and e-mail client with iOS. Any operating system today shipping without web/e-mail capabilities would be torn to shreds immediately by everyone. Can you imagine someone trying to ship such an OS to the general public?

But you can choose another browser and e-mail client to be your default application for web/e-mail. I am using both Chrome and Firefox on my iPhone since I use them for work and private respectively and they sync my sessions for me. You can even remove Mobile Safari and E-mail from your iOS device if you so wish (Apple has instructions on their support pages on how to set the default app and what happens if you delete an app: https://support.apple.com/en-u...).

Removing the bundled browser was something Microsoft claimed being impossible with Internet Explorer on Windows 98 back in the day. They day Apple removes that functionality, you have my full blessing to go all-out righteous apeshit on them.

So while you are right on one point, that Apple does only allows other browsers to use Webkit, that does not make the rest of your statement any more correct.

You can criticize Apple all you want for only allowing Webkit, I don't care. Do so, but stop making false equivalences.

Read up on United States v. Microsoft Corp and the first browser wars. Equating what Apple is doing with iOS today is not the same as what happened back then, no matter how much you would like it to be.

What?!? You are now absurdly changing the question to include illegality and immediately after saying that you don't know if this illegal or not. How can you even claim that it being illegal or not is a whole other thing? You are now building your whole statement on that premise!

Why are you so hell-bent on being right that you have resort to spew such nonsense. If you want to derail a discussion, congratulations, you have succeeded. There is no point in discussing with someone who starts, not moving goalposts, but inventing totally new ones all over the place as well as taking a dump on the ball to dissuade anyone from getting close to it. F*** this trolling behavior!

No, that is far from "all you are saying". You have been saying a lot more, and a lot of it, like the previous quote, are fabrications or total nonsense.

If that is your takeaway, then you should brush up on your reading comprehension.

I replied to your "Forcing every iPhone and iPad user to use their Safari WebKit rendering engine*. A move even more drastic than when Microsoft only bundled their browser is Windows." (emphasis mine). It was not more drastic than when Microsoft "only" bundled their browser (that is revisionsism). They tried to make other browsers unusable by only opening links in IE and then claimed that IE was an integral part of Windows (which was proven it wasn't).

When you then questioned if Microsoft should have been not guilty you conveniently omit that the reason to WHY they were found guilty depended on a number of things, their de-facto monopoly being one important factor. I never said that Apple has not abused their power. What matters is if they do it now. If they are, throw the book at them. Until then stop make crappy comparions that doesn't hold water.

Also:

This is a f***ing boatload of hypocrisy. So the users that LIKE how things work and have bought into the Apple ecosystem BECAUSE of this should yield to some other users that don't like how it works because they want to whine until things change to suit them. How about voting with your wallet and go somewhere where the toys work as you want them to instead of trying to break the things that work for others.

That you then have the stomach to be upset over the fact that some like what currently is and you don't respect their wish to let them, while demanding respect for yourself... holy batman! Think hard about what you wrote. Then think hard again. If you cannot see how inane you statement is, you are lost man!

Not sure how old you are, but lot of us are old enough to have experienced the browser wars and having to live through the misery created by Internet Explorer and the plethora of security nightmares it provided. Let me tell you that it is not the same.

Microsoft lost that one since everyone agreed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the PC market with Windows. No other operating system was anywhere close to competing with Windows. In some sectors there are literally NO realistic alternatives. If you need to run some programs you must use Windows. It was so back then and in many cases still are so today.

With the browser wars, Microsoft tried to force out other, existing browsers from their platform.

With iOS there has never been other rendering kits, and everyone is free to use it to create their own browser. While that might not be enough for tech nerds like us, for the average Joe that is a big difference. They don't care what is under the hood, as long as it works the way they want to. Also, while iOS is a major player on many markets, it is far from dominating the world like Windows did back in the day. So as a consumer you have other choices.

Even though there are similarities, there are differences. Right now Apple is under a lot of scrutiny and time will tell if they too are considered abusing their market power. If you think you are smarter than the people that got Microsoft, why don't you go for their job and then you can go after Apple all you want?

Sure, you can compare apples to oranges if you want to. And if you believe that cars have no other use than to kill people, feel free to advocate for a ban. Or what is your message here? Does the average gun owner spend as much time shooting their gun as the average car driver spends driving their car? There is more than one way to do metrics you know.

And while doing comparisons, let us find some more. There are about 3,4 million deaths each year in the US, some 695000 from heart disease, 605000 from cancer, 416000 from Covid, 224000 from accidents, etc (source). What is the takeaway from this? That it is dangerous to live, because you can die?

But if you really want to go down that road (for real, and not sarcastically), I predict that in a not too distant future, in many places you will not be able to drive a car. Only self driving cars will be allowed, since they will have a much better track record than human drivers. But of course, we will then have the manual driving lobby saying "...only when you pry the steering wheel out of my dead cold fingers." But that is for another discussion.

Everyone that does statistics at gun deaths and gun injuries include suicides. You want to count it any other way? Why don't convince the scientific community that suicides doesn't count. Should we not count the murder-suicides too, since the perpetrator commited suicide AFTER killing people?

It is not a moving goal post. If you had studied gun related deaths the least you would know this. The fact that you didn't know this tell me that your reasoning is not based on facts and statistics but a feeling of how it "should be".

But let me humor you, so not be "intellectually dishonest" (in your words). Even if you don't count gun related suicides, gang related gun deaths is a tenth of the total number of gun deaths. So your statement about most gun deaths is between gangs in the ghettos is pure BS. Or do you want to run away from the conversation now that the cornerstone of your argumentation is shown to be false? Who is intellectually dishonest now. If you have anything that actually backs up your statements show us the data or GTFO.

Wow, that is one bold statement! I think many policy makers would love to be so decisive and certain in what causes to eliminate from the discussion. So tell us, is it because you have criminal gangs and other western nations have very few? Or what is?

Half of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Almost any source I could find say the same.

As for gang homocides I could not find any recent data, but the data I found say it is about a tenth of the suicides making gang related homocides 5% of the total number of gun deaths using back of the envelope calculations. Feel free to show me wrong by showing more recent data.

Too bad the data contradicts you. Keep making policies based on bad data and you will get bad policies. You have given a main reason already: as long as enough Americans don't care about these statistics nothing will happen. When it happens to someone else it is just a statistic, as long as you don't take my gun, right?

Don't be like that. You are way smarter than the rest of us, you can tell us what they say. Why not take the time to explain how the US is an outlier when it comes to gun deaths. Also why the US is an outlier when it comes to gun ownership.

Come on! You have mass shootings at alarmingly regular intervals. And have had so for years, yet nothing has really happened. Depending on what metric you use for calling it a mass shooting it happens every second week to once every two months. Perhaps not the "every weekend" you are going for and not in the same area all the time, but still in the same magnitude of time and in your own country.

And don't come and say that all those mass shootings are mainly in the ghetto areas, because they are not. Just given the cost of gun injuries and gun violence I would want to do something about it. IMHO the amount of money is mind-blowing.

So excuse me for not believing you really care about this issue. Your rethorics and actions say otherwise.

But hey! I am not an American, so if you want your society to be filled to the brim (120 civilian firearms per 100 people, more than 1 per citizen counting man, woman AND child as of 2017!) who am I to tell you that it is a bad idea. You seem to have accepted the way it is. And if you think it works, why try to fix it? /s

Sidenote: I used to have a friend in the US that years ago told me that if Barack Obama was elected they (the Democrats) would try to grab their (the regular law-abiding Americans) guns. So if he was elected there would be another civil war. Not could be, it WOULD be. He really believed in this. I am happy to see that his beliefs were wrong and based on some kind of myth. The trouble is when enought people buy into the something like this and using it to dehumanize/demonize the "other side". It is not helpful nor constructive.

So that is not "coming for your guns" then? And it would be easy to update the constitution? No gun lobby that would oppose?

Can't tell if you are actually serious or if this is a red herring.

Ah, so you DO agree that the times (and language) has changed, and you cannot read the constitution as-is but have to interpret it for modern times. Because there seem to be a lot of Americans that do not agree and want it to be interpreted "literally" according to their reading.

You say it is very simple. I do not believe you. How many laws are being stonewalled and made into a partisan issue? And now we are talking about changing the constitution...

Care to tell us what dual use a weapon have? Automatic fire vs semi-automatic fire is NOT a dual use. That is a strawman.

Fertilizer is used to grow crops. If fertilizier could only be used to make explosives or even if the primary use would be for explosives, it would have been banned long ago.

Ehhh... No. Shit cannot be used to make bombs. Ammonium nitrate can. You may own as much shit as you want, I don't care. But talking about shit in this context is showing that you do not care about being factually correct.

Yes, give the militia access to military grade hardware as long as they are part of the well regulated militia. But don't let anyone get their hands on military grade hardware. This is how other nations solve the problem. Back in the day, about the time I did my military service, my father used to serve as such a militia/home-defense-unit and had the same type service gun I had, just that he had it stored in his home. I had mine in a military storage close to where I was stationed.

Also, having restrictions on who is suitable to defend the country might not be such a bad idea. How many gun related deaths did the US have in 2022 (around 45000)? Compare that to the last decades of wars the US has been in, and you will see that the domestic gun deaths eclipse anything in recent times.

Gun laws should be applicable to the times. What are the US gun laws for? Back in the 1700's when there was no real army? Against a foreign invader coming to take over the US (from where)? To defend from a corrupt government? To defend from criminals? I have heard all these arguments and different answers require different solutions. Or is it just because of "freedom"/that anyone should be able to own them just because? Because I have met those people too when visiting the US and they are a bit scary in their fundametalism.

Could you please point me to the part of the second amendment that shows that citizens have to have access to semi-automatic rifles (that can easily be converted into automatic ones). I thought the second amendment said:

Are most of your gun owners part of a well regulated Militia? Because I know of a few countries that rely on some part of the population being armed and part of a home defence force, to deter potential invaders. But they are well regulated, meaning that they are members of units that does regular exercises and form parts of the larger defence force, not some random person who walked into a gun shop and got a gun after a few days waiting period and a quick background check.

I am not saying that you should get rid of your second amendment. I am saying that some guns should not be in the hands of the average citizen. And if your government is trying to get rid of those guns, I fully support them and do not see any problem with your constitution. You trying to portray it as getting rid of the second amendment is dishonest and a strawman.

Your constitution was written in another era, just a few decades after being a witch was a real thing you could get burned for. Laws need to be interpreted and updated to match the times. Playing make-beileve and saying that your founding fathers were some kind of omniscient semi-gods that knew what was best for your country for all time to come, is naive. I bet that if they lived today the constitution would be quite different.