> Besides the slightly interesting stuff Tamron is doing, why on earth would I want firmware updates for a lens?
Improved algorithms for focus hunting, diminishing chromatic aberration (most of it is in the glass but some positioning can tweak it).
I get it, there's not a lot that will happen there, but some of that stuff will be useful on an investment that can easily be several thousand (I don't get into the wildlife telephotos, but two of my lenses were $3,300 or so - RF 85/1.2 and RF 28-70/2).
First party lenses will be handled by either camera firmware or by the camera - for your lens (I'm in the Canon RF system heavily) you can do the "download to SD from canon.com" and the firmware update on the camera will recognize it as a lens firmware, not a camera firmware. And sometimes camera firmware will also bundle lens firmwares that get updated when you attach the lens (usually these are reserved for issues that have a potential to damage the lens or camera - like excessive hunting wearing the motor, etc., not 'nice refinements').
I do agree with your assessment, on both parts, but I think it could survive with minor tweaking.
"We are going to push on the technical details, both those we agree with and disagree with. This is where the rubber meets the road. You've painted a picture, how does it stand up to scrutiny and challenge. In the end, while there may not be perfect alignment, we're looking to see how your ideas go through the process of validation and how we get there, communication, exploration, and collaboration-wise."
I'm not sure what exactly that's meant to do other than using more words to say the same thing only this time with hackneyed cliches. IME it's best to avoid empty metaphor that does little more than occupy space.
Like...
> This is where the rubber meets the road. You've painted a picture, ...
Hah, it is, in hindsight, and I agree (and bleh, last thing I want to sound like is AI!). But I think my point is more - if it had been framed as something like "defending your thesis/dissertation", seeing if your choices stand up to scrutiny, versus the somewhat snooty down-the-nose feeling of "We are judging you. Speak now." then it is better - and real: your architecture and code decisions should stand up to review/critique, after all.
Framing something as "defending" against "critique" creates an interaction that is immediately adversarial, which is not so far distant from judging down-the-nose, IMO. They are words of combat and criticism, and I think we get better outcomes when we find ways to ask a candidate to "discuss strengths and compromises" without that. I don't want any of my candidates to feel like they are on defense against me in a scenario where they know that there is a catastrophic power imbalance and I am able to use literally any reason I want to kick them to the street. People don't think well in that kind of situation.
> last thing I want to sound like is AI!
My suggestion of it signaling AI was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Humans have been writing inexpertly and injecting cliched fluff since the invention of writing. Communicating with precision is one of the most difficult things that any of us ever do.
I mean S&P had actually drawn up a lot of the changes, regulations, and paperwork for entrants, so it wasn't a done deal, but they absolutely were considering it, and it was a very real "risk".
I have shelving behind me that gets a lot of conversations between the Lego Architecture and bonsai and botanicals.
My partner likes a lot of the botanicals in our living room, on top of speakers, etc. The table has a vase with bouquet. That's our agreement, architecture and other things (Lighthouse, Jazz Quartet, Ship in a Bottle, Grand Piano are my favorite) in my office, botanicals in the living room.
That adds up. I have the Tower Bridge, Grand Piano, and Lighthouse that were similar. Tower Bridge was 4200 and 20 hours, Grand Piano, 3600 and 15, Lighthouse about 3000 and 12.
Even as someone who thinks crypto is an absolute cesspool, and while acknowledging that even in the "move cash" scenario that the vast majority of it is shady, from avoiding taxes to ... whatever, to be honest, I can't get too mad if it helps the "average person" who is sincerely escaping a "problematic" country/home do so.
Improved algorithms for focus hunting, diminishing chromatic aberration (most of it is in the glass but some positioning can tweak it).
I get it, there's not a lot that will happen there, but some of that stuff will be useful on an investment that can easily be several thousand (I don't get into the wildlife telephotos, but two of my lenses were $3,300 or so - RF 85/1.2 and RF 28-70/2).
reply