Bracketing (linguistics) Puns

“My brother-in-law, Brett’s business”

I just saw some one say this on Facebook, and I’m confused because my brain is breaking. Would you put a comma after Brett because it’s an interjection? But if you do, it would interrupt the possession of it being his business, no?

I've been shooting for over 30 years so I'm not a newbie. I shot a model in my studio yesterday for about 3 hours. When I was finished I set the camera on the table and left. No one has been there since then. Today I go in the studio, turn on the D810 and the focus point in the viewfinder is going crazy, rapidly scrolling across the screen repeatedly. After pushing the focus button it stopped but now it won't move. Looking at the LCD screen on top of the camera it appears to be in the 'bracket' mode as the number of frames and exposure are displayed. Turning the wheels changes those numbers. I can take a picture and the picture shows on the LCD but none of the buttons (preview, menu, ISO, WB, etc) work. When I turn the camera off the top LCD momentarily shows the normal screen then just the frame count like usual. The camera just came back from being repaired for an unrelated (hopefully) problem. Live view works. Here's what I've tried:

1. Checked the lens contact.

2. Tried a different lens.

3. Changed batteries.

4. Removed the battery grip.

5. Tried the 2 button reset. It didn't reset, as if the buttons aren't functioning.

6. Took the battery out for 30 minutes.

7. Pressed the function button while rolling the main wheel.

8. Beat my head against the corner of the table.

Obviously, none of this fixed the camera. Suggestions?

Sometimes it's impossible to give a client a price.

There are too many variables, the scope of the project is too broad.

In this case give a price range. This is referred to as price bracketing.

It is a very effective technique to surface a client's budget.

Here's an example of how to do this:

>"John, based on what we talked about & without doing a full discovery call. I think the budget is going to fall between $45k, and on the low end $10k. Where in this range might are prepared to spend?"

Then be silent, don't react.

If you practice price bracketing with your prospects by starting with a high anchor...

You'll increase your project budgets without doing any extra work.

We've used this technique to close clients for our agency.

I am wondering about phenomenology as a research method - I get underlying and looking for patterns in the terms used to describe the objects of attention, in other words, I get the hermeneutic circle to precipitate re-occurring themes and adjectives, and all that - but my problem is bracketing (or epoché) - that disassociative preliminary act in the phenomenological analysis, put forward by Husserl as a kind of suspension of the trust in the objectivity of the world. I assume that this means on behalf of the perceiver - whether the respondent (i.e. those 'subjects' or 'informants' who are 'object' of the research along with the noumena) or the philosopher who is being introspective? Clearly, this is in almost complete counter distinction to approaches in academic psychology such as behaviourism, but how would this relate to Nietzsche, and later Albert Schutz when they claim that there are 'no such things as facts, only interpretations'. Does this mean an endorsement of phenomenological method as we are uncovering the contents if not the process or interpretation? Or does it relate more to Durkheim's 'social facts' or other propositions such as Wittgensteinian 'language games' which maybe leads to linguistics such as Chomsky (deep structure) or even Sapir-Whorf - i.e. the limited stock of adjectives in a given language delimiting the responses )? Bracketing also rings of a kind of naïve view produced by practitioners of Zen. I've experienced something of this not through meditation but doing protracted period in isolations tanks - you emerge to a glistening, complex more vid and glistening world of things. This kind of awareness feels like what bracketing is hinting at (ha ha - my interpretations of it) - but it is hardly useful as a practice except a kind study of itself as a practice.

Here's the imgur album explaining the situation: https://imgur.com/a/8B2Fq9B

To be more precise it potentially cut me out. Worlds qualifiers rules are very complex, so it's easy to guess how it could've happened.

To simplify, there are 22 players qualifying to Worlds qualifiers through ranked ladder points. This method is the least reputable and seeds you low in the bracket. But still TWENTY TWO PLAYERS through this method.

You can find the qualified here: https://playruneterra.com/en-us/news/competitive/lor-world-championship-qualifiers/ And the tournament rules here: https://cdn.battlefy.com/legends-of-runeterra-championship-qualifiers-2021-rules

Hello, I dabble in some hobby product photography where I end up with like 6 shots with different lightning that will be combined later in post. In Photoshop I used to import all the layers and have photoshop auto align them based on pixels. I can't really find a way (including) google to do the same in GIMP.

Recently I've been looking in to creating my own HDRI images and I've read the guides from Greg Zaal and PolyHaven (used to be HDRI Haven). One thing they mention is that HDRI's potentially need up to 24 EV's (or more) to capture all the details in the brightest parts. However, from what I've read, even a Canon hacked with magic lantern can't shoot that many EV's in one burst.

So how do you shoot that many EV's to make a properly lit HDRI?

Is it just a case of shooting multiple 360's with, for example, one burst of bracketing at 1/4000 to 1/250 then a second 360 at 1/125 to 1/8? I imagine getting around one 360 is hard enough if you have something that moves or are trying to shoot at sunrise/sunset.

The only thing I can think of outside of doing two 360 photos is that PolyHaven he mentions taking extra shots of the sun with an ND filter as even with bracketing the sun is blown out. This suggested the enough details would be captured in the actual scene with regular bracketing. So you only need to stitch in a few extra photos of the sun.

What makes it potentially more tricky for me is that I come from a photography background so already have the camera, lens', tripod and panoramic head etc. But I use a Nikon so I'm limited to 8Ev's (5 shots at 2Ev steps) and as it's only a hobby I don't want the expense of switching to Canon.

So glad!

Thyme waits for Noam, man.

Prior to tiers I had a Rookie Gold in Community Cup... since tiers were implemented, I have struggled aside from a Pro Tier 3 mini gold and an Expert 2 mini top 10. I have probably failed to make more expert 2 weekends than I've qualified for and I was thinking that mini (18 hole) tourney results should not factor into the level of difficulty of bracket for full (45 hole) tourneys because its a completely different beast.

Thoughts?

Lately I've been experimenting with my R6's focus stacking feature.

Besides of not knowing which "intensity" to choose from (1-10) depending on the occasion , I either set the number of images to high or too low.

For example, with the intensity set to 3, I might select 5 images and not be enough, or select 120 images but the camera won't stop shooting until it reaches 120 shots, even if it already achieved focus at infinity.

The latter produces a ton of extra files, wears down the camera, and I can't tell how many shots I actually need to do the stacking.

Some of my friends use Nikon Z6's, and they said that their camera automatically stops shooting when infinity is reached even if it's a lower number of shots than set in the settings, plus putting each stack in a separate folder.

Help?

Edit Thank you all for such an enormous resource list

EDIT: In case anyone finds this because they have the same question as me, I've found something quite helpful:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6_4

Also this lecture was quite a nice introduction of the big idea.

I'm trying to get some background about how the cognitive linguistics approach to metaphor, so specifically Lakoff's 1992 "The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor" and related work, interacts with and bears on more "philosophical" approaches like Black, Davidson (whose view I am sympathetic to), Searle and so on. I'm solid on the latter but find any attempt to understand the former and specifically put the two into dialogue very difficult.

This difficulty is illustrated by the SEP article on metaphor, which you could lift out the "cognitive linguistics" section, make it its own article, and never suspect that it was ever part of a bigger article or that the metaphor article once contained such a section. This seems like an approach taken by a lot of texts*, bracketing either the coglang for the phil of language or vice versa. At most they will refer to Lakoff & Johnson 1980 as showing that metaphorical or figurative meaning is "more widespread" than we might otherwise assume, and leave it at that. *I should clarify I mean "a lot of texts" on my reading list.

Meanwhile, Lakoff himself portrays the upshot of his account as showing that basically all the philosophy of language approaches lie on false assumptions, to the point that one wonders why one was assigned to read them in the first place (my specific difficulty here is probably that it's framed as "science" so I don't see how to argue against it). So I was wondering if anyone had reading recommendations that came at metaphor from the philosophy of language side but explicitly discusses the significance of cognitive linguistic work like Lakoff's for this account, and whether the views that Lakoff criticizes are just doomed or not.

I want to whistle. I study phonetics/phonology, I understand sagittal diagrams, at this point I can articulate at least 80% of the IPA - but whistling is beyond me. All the tutorials I've seen don't tell me exactly what the placement of my lips or tongue should be and I feel like I have all the tools necessary to learn, IF someone were to just contextualize it in linguistic terms.

TEACH ME TO WHISTLE!!! I feel like the closest I've gotten is articulating a long /ʃ/ with rounded lips but I still sound like a snake's imitation of a kettle just starting to boil.

Edit: Oh my god. I didn't think it could happen but I just whistled. I knew studying linguistics would pay off. It's super high pitched and I can only sustain it for about a second before I lose my posture but holy frick you guys are wizards.

I once read something on here about how a professor of Spanish Linguistics was able to prove that someone had been murdered rather than killed themselves because they examined the "suicide" letter (written in English) and proved that the mistakes made were too irregular for a native Spanish speaker whose only other language was English.

Kind of like how a nurse could identify your symptoms on the spot or an engineer could estimate how long it will take for a pot to fill up with water, what "magic tricks" can a linguist pull in real life that can dazzle people?

I've been saying how "comb" is related to the OCS *z[o]mbъ for years now. Gotta get some new material.

EDIT: I don't remember the exact story! This was years ago and it's not really important, it just serves as a vehicle to stimulate thinking! Please post whatever corrections to the story you have down below if you want.