You're going to find out they have a gigantic corporate bias in the search. It's not about pushing a political agenda, it's about making money. It's all about making money.

Well Played

You act like I didn't RTFA before posting!! Well I had not!! But seriously, this is great news.

Most of Blender works just great on Mac OS, what doesn't work well is rendering. It will do it, but not efficiently. Hopefully this is a move to fund development for Metal rendering support.

Dax? Certainly non-binary, arguably transgender.

I agree with this. I work as a "creative" (commercial photography) and I keep nothing but the specific software I need on my machine's. All work files are kept on SSD's while in the field and dumped onto a RAID at the office. The computers themselves are kept clean free of anything that might degrade performance.

I recently sent an old Mac Book 7,1 to my mother-in-law. Ram upgraded to 6gb, solid state drive and OS X 10.10. It works great for light browsing, email and FaceTime.

If you're not making money off it, a 3000 series epson is a better buy (and much smaller foot print). 4900 will last longer and be cheaper to operate in the long term, but you're looking at $3000-4000 in start up costs (at retail). You'd have to make a lot of prints, way more than 100's, to justify it. 3000 series can be had for $1500-2000 in start up costs.

Oh man, I just watched the trailer for it. Looks soooooo bad.

I always found the phone support was great. And on the two occasions I needed parts, they had them to me the next morning, all covered by apple care.

Neither.

Food shots are retouched. But (at least here in the US) there are truth in advertising laws. So if you see a shot of a McDonalds hamburger, it made from the same ingredients and materials that you would get at the restaurant. The difference is that what you get at McD's has been slapped together by a line worker, while the photo-ed one was assembled by a food stylist who took their time and made it look edible (or as edible as a McDonalds burger can look).

Photojournalism and commercial photography are two completely different beasts. Without getting into any theoretical arguments about what is photographic truth, photojournalism tries to convey the facts of an event where as commercial photography want to convey an idea. Reality and truth don't matter. After over a decade in this business, more and more I think of it as image making through photographic processes. And for the record every, and I mean EVERY photo you see in an ad, editorial spread, billboard etc... has been manipulated. This has been true since the dawn of photography. Even Ansel Adams would quite literally move boulders to get the shot he wanted. How is manipulating the scene before hand any different than doing it after.