somethingp

If they'd continued paying for coffee, he would've only been able to go up to $16.899 million. Think of the horror and injustice!

There's a white color. You can tell they erased it from the legend

It was a poor reference to a quote from the TV show Community. The half Palestinian character Abed says that his father's falafel restaurant had been struggling for a while because "9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business"

9/11 was the 9/11 of the Jenga business

There's no way humans kill 100 million sharks a year. How many sharks are there?

That's a good idea. I think in that situation the fancy stuff matters less than the magnification so the "cheaper" telescopes might make more sense. I'll have to look into it!

The guy who posted the screenshot has poor critical problem solving ability

I actually was using my 200-600 with a 1.4x teleconverter. For photos it was a little easier but particularly for video was harder. But honestly it's all great. I don't do crazy hikes with a lot of gear so I'm happy to lug my 200-600 around. And it usually gets me the shot or close to it. I'm not a professional so it's not like anything depends on me getting the shot. It's more about the journey anyway haha

Main thing is my a7iv no longer feels like it's limiting me like my d3300 did and more often than not, it is my own limitations

I started with a used Nikon d3300 a while ago, and then upgraded to an a7iv when it came out. I was mostly starting to feel the limitations of low light performance and slow autofocus on the d3300. For me the a7iv seemed like the right choice at the time, and I've been very happy with it. But I think if I were making the same decision now, I might choose the a6700. It's smaller, similar specs, cheaper, and most importantly for me, the apsc crop would be better for wildlife as it gives better reach. I recently went to Yellowstone and the number of times cool stuff was happening just a little too far away was a bit frustrating. If I had something like an a7riv or a7rv, it wouldn't be a problem because of how high resolution they are. But those cameras cost a ton more. But I'm still very happy with my a7iv and will not be changing cameras any time soon.

I would say that unless you have a lot of nice glass for the d3200 already, don't worry about switching to Sony. I think it really is the best brand for hobbyists because of how much affordable and excellent 3rd party glass is available for the system in both full frame and aspc. Just cannot be matched with any other system. Also, if you do want the crazy fancy stuff, the Sony G and GM lenses are some of the best in the game, and definitely have the most variety of lenses.

I would avoid m43. A lot of the newer cameras aren't particularly light or small. I think the Sony apsc cameras are often more compact and more affordable.

Which coaster is that? It looks terrifying!

Sure, but the difference was he could've been charged for murder if, let's say, the person he ordered to be killed was a political opponent and not a clear threat to the nation. And Congress or judges would've had some power to make that call before, whereas they don't really seem to have that power anymore.

Also, strictly speaking in terms of what the founders wanted - they did not want the president to have those kinds of powers. Most of these things were really brought in during FDR's tenure during WWII where he took a lot of power for the executive branch. And it's a trend that's been continuing since.

Not really. The founders wanted a 3 pronged, balanced government with each branch checking the others' power. Now the legislative essentially can't do anything against the executive, and neither can the judicial unless SCOTUS changes its mind.

They specifically didn't want another king