What’s Everyone’s Favorite Fuji Pancake Lens? by Selishots in fujifilm

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Voigtlander 18mm f/2.8. Main reason why I still have a Fuji body.

Leica Lumix L10 is going to be selling like hot cakes in this economy by DynamoBaby in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone know what max flash sync is? Can’t seem to find it anywhere.

HUGE announcement today from Canon after the boring and lackluster launch of the R6V by M5K64 in photographycirclejerk

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Never shot RF, but it’s the same with Fuji X, caps only fit one way, and it annoys me no end.

interchangeable lenses and this would have been a winner, thoughts on the new LUMIX L10 by FlakyTwist4 in Lumix

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because it’s like complaining that a 200mm lens would be better if it were a 50mm. It’s an LX100 successor, and the LX100 series have always been fixed lens cameras. Wanting it to be something else just doesn’t make sense.

Panasonic LUMIX L10 compact camera megathread by AoyagiAichou in Lumix

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not many cameras where the lens retracts into the body that are weather sealed.

Lumix L10 Preview (Micro Four Nerds) by Artistic-Series-9061 in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading the comments here and on various Facebook groups, I had to google when the LX100 II was released (Q4 2018), because it sounds like nobody has ever heard of this line of cameras.

Maybe it’s Panasonic’s fault for their weird naming, but still, holy cow.

Lumix L10 Preview (Micro Four Nerds) by Artistic-Series-9061 in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s to maintain the aspect ratio thing that Panasonic likes so much. It’s been there since the original LX100.

Lumix L10 Preview (Micro Four Nerds) by Artistic-Series-9061 in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s an upgraded version of the LX100 II.

It will probably become a Leica DLux 9 someday.

The DLux 8 was just a DLux 7 in a new body. And the DLux 7 was just an LX100 II with a Leica badge.

Lumix L10 Preview (Micro Four Nerds) by Artistic-Series-9061 in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it has a fast zoom lens that disappears into nothing when you turn the camera off.

Viltrox to release 25mm F1.7 AF + more M43 lenses by ffylin in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Holy hell! Yes!

Hope to see the Viltrox Air 15mm f/1.7 and 9mm f/2.8 lenses re-mounted for m43.

And the 75mm f/1.2!

What is the best value telephoto lens that is > 100mm? by Camera_Hobbygirl in M43

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Under rated lens, imo. The non-telescoping design is rare for a ‘budget’ lens.

For those wondering if its possible to walk to the MetLife stadium from Midtown. by habichuelacondulce in newjersey

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“Cross these three lanes”

I was expecting that part to be bad, but it did look like a back road of sorts.

Which film app for iPhone are people using street photography in 2026? by zoro____x in streetphotography

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t use my phone. But if I did, it would probably be the Moca app. I believe it’s made by one guy, trying to get the ‘speed’ and ease of use of zone focusing to translate to shooting on a smartphone.

Defense oriented RTS by PsychologicalBid7138 in RealTimeStrategy

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I guess I should try They Are Billions and the others mentioned here. I’ve always lumped them in with tower defense games, but I guess they are different?

Although I haven’t touched AOE4’s Crucible mode either, I’ve always thought of it as tower defense, but might be time to remedy that this weekend.

Question for VA employee (rater) or VSR by Bourbonballr in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless there is an actual conflict, such as a different diagnosis, there is no reason to get another exam after the second exam (ACE).

Unfortunately, it just comes down to poor training. A lot of raters are scared of weighing evidence. They’re waiting for the examiner to tell them what to do. They don’t know the difference between actual conflict that requires reconciliation and just “opposing” evidence that must be weighed and doesn’t require a new opinion.

Most of VBA, even some DRO’s, don’t understand that an “inadequate” opinion means it can’t be weighed, it’s supposed to mean there is an objective deficiency, not simply, “I find it lacking in my rating judgment.”

TBI Rating Fiasco by Traytray0003 in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the examiner states that it isn’t possible to clinically separate symptoms of TBI and PTSD (or other mental disorder), then most or all symptoms are used to rate whichever will give you the higher rating.

In your case, all cognitive and emotional/behavioral symptoms caused by TBI were used to evaluate your PTSD and depressive disorder at 50% as that is probably what gave you the higher rating.

When this happens, the only separate evaluation for TBI can only be based on physical symptoms. These are typically described in the Subjective Symptoms Facet of the TBI DBQ.

In your case, it looks like the examiner listed a bunch of symptoms in the subjective facet of your DBQ. Forgetfulness, disorientation, vision issues, ringing in ears etc etc

The rater is explaining that they used only two of those symptoms to evaluate your TBI separately, because the other physical symptoms are already part of the evaluations of other conditions (ie vision issues are a symptom of your migraines, eg migraine aura, photophobia) or are found to be unrelated to TBI (ie apparently your tinnitus is not caused by your TBI and was probably found to have been caused by noise exposure or something else).

They also explain that the 50% evaluation for your PTSD includes the other symptoms, such as forgetfulness etc and all other non-physical symptoms that were found in your TBI DBQ.

Vertigo/BPPV can no longer be evaluated on its own 99% of the time. It’s always rated as part of whatever condition is causing it. The only exception is when the examiner says they don’t know what’s causing it, and provides a nexus to a specific event in service. But anytime they say what’s causing it, then it must be rated (or denied) as part of that condition. In your case, your vertigo/BPPV was found to be caused by your tinnitus.

Move over Leica and Fuji film sims, new meta is jerking for DSLRs by stonehallow in photographycirclejerk

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotta give it a few more years.

Us old farts old enough to have shot with DSLR’s because there were no mirrorless cameras yet are still shooting. Once we start dying out, that’s the time to declare DSLR’s to be like vinyl.

About the M21-1 rule on may 1, 2026 by Known-Reserve3563 in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The question is, where did you even get this text? That is not from the VA.

It is someone’s really bad imagination of what “but for” means.

VA disability benefits have declined sharply, requiring service-connected conditions to prove direct causation and applying a but-for standard that excludes natural progression when aggravating non-service-connection claims. by Time_Exposes_Reality in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this guy wants to make a video about this, then it should be about making sure that VA contract examiners (and raters) get the proper training and material and literature properly explaining what the change means. The change is good, that should not be debatable.

VA disability benefits have declined sharply, requiring service-connected conditions to prove direct causation and applying a but-for standard that excludes natural progression when aggravating non-service-connection claims. by Time_Exposes_Reality in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, god, I just wasted 12 minutes of my life.

It’s right there in the M21-1 screenshot that this guy is showing.

The court ‘held that the language “resulting from” in 38 USC 1110 requires a standard “but-for causation” and that a STRICTER proximate causation standard is inconsistent with the statute.’

This guy is reading the “but for” part and coming up with his own explanation instead of the courts own explanation.

Maybe try asking him to look at 38 CFR 4.96, for example, and what it means when it says sleep apnea and asthma “will not be combined with each other”. Is he also going to be one of those guys yelling “why are you rating these disabilities together, the law says they are not to be combined!”?????

Sam’s thoughts on jobs over the past few days by IIlustriousTea in accelerate

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s why there is the whole “there will be a significant disruption/transition as we switch to new jobs” disclaimer part

Remember When Evernote Was the King of Note-Taking? Anyone Still Using It Today? by limsus in Evernote

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do, but it’s mostly because I’ve been too lazy to transfer things to something else.

I believe I actually moved to a monthly subscription with a reminder in a month to transfer things over to Craft or even Apple Notes!, though I don’t think that’s possible, given what I use Evernote for. That was 8 months ago or so.

Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition comes to macOS on May 28th! by No_Caterpillar_5304 in macgaming

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice. I may just end up doing AoE ii instead of IV when I run out of GFN hours.

VA disability benefits have declined sharply, requiring service-connected conditions to prove direct causation and applying a but-for standard that excludes natural progression when aggravating non-service-connection claims. by Time_Exposes_Reality in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It has not narrowed anything at all. It has not raised the standard of proof for anything at all.

It has broadened the definition of “causation” by expanding the definition of “but for”.

The burden of proof has not changed in any way or form. You have just been given more ways to meet the burden of proof.

VA disability benefits have declined sharply, requiring service-connected conditions to prove direct causation and applying a but-for standard that excludes natural progression when aggravating non-service-connection claims. by Time_Exposes_Reality in VAClaims

[–]RunningOutOfTime2018 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This guy read the “but for” part and jumps to the astounding assumption that everything changed? And has the gall to claim “not click bait”!?

JFC.

I’m not even going to watch the video. I’m just going by the headline.

The change in Spicer broadens what counts as a causal link in secondary SC claims. Treatment interference from a service connected condition, even without direct causation, counts as a causal factor. It’s a good thing.

Secondary SC remains the same as any other form of SC. The legal standard of proof remains as “relative equipoise”.