Most people recruit someone to join groups for one of three reasons.
1) You want the group to be bigger. The problem with growing for growth sake is it doesn’t place emphasis on each member’s unique motivations. It’s a selfish way of growing the group – usually done for the benefit of you, not the members. Members are indifferent to a group’s size. They only want the group to be better. Sometimes adding new people helps. It brings in new expertise, energy, and perspectives. This leads to the next two.
2) You have a clearly defined role to fill. In organisations, especially, we recruit people to fill clearly defined roles. But roles are limiting and repetitive. A role is autonomy-thwarting. A role condemns people to act in line with what the role entails regardless of their own beliefs. A role doesn’t easily allow someone to express their creativity and ability.
3) You have a clearly defined challenge to tackle. A challenge is invigorating. A challenge attracts smart people looking for something special. A challenge lets someone increase their skill level and wake up motivated every morning.
The best way to engage anyone in any group is to highlight how they can use their existing skills and experience to tackle a challenge that impacts the group. That challenge should be slightly beyond anything they’ve done in the past.
Among my (many) mistakes in growing FeverBee is to hire people for clearly defined roles instead of clearly defined challenges. These days we’re much better. We define the challenges and new staff decide their own job titles.
We’ve spent the past 9 months finding someone to tackle the many exciting challenges when growing a consultancy practice. A few weeks ago, we found Todd Nilson. Todd has spent years growing consultancy practices and building internal/external communities at organisations like 7Summits, SPR, and a variety of recruitment companies.
We’re ecstatic he decided to join us and feel confident many of you will be blown away by what he brings to the table. Feel free to say hello to email@example.com.
There’s an (admittedly unsourced) Steve Jobs quote: “It makes no sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do. We hire smart people to tell us what to do“. It’s as true in communities and social groups as it is in business.
According to California state law the two vehicles below should be treated the same, and should treat the roadway the same.
The vehicle code assumes both are suited for the same infrastructure, pose the same risks, and offer the same rewards. What do you think?
One San Francisco Supervisor has proposed an ordinance that takes the radical position that these two vehicles are not alike. Read on.
Over the summer San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Park Station Captain John Sanford unleashed a "crackdown" on bikes rolling through stop signs, a commonsense commuter technique known as the "Idaho Stop" which preserves momentum and can ease congestion. The crackdown, a clear distraction from the preventable damage Vision Zero targets, was met with passionate resistance. That is to say, cyclists were pissed.
Wiggle Stop-In protest. Photo by Nuala Sawyer.
In reply, the SF Bicycle Coalition, Wigg Party, and others organized action and sentiment. Stop-In protests called on Wiggle route riders to come to a full and complete stop to demonstrate the absurdity of the letter of the law. All of this got the attention of Capt. Sanford who held a constructive community meeting, even pledging to get out on a bike patrol. Common sense prevailed (for the time being) and Capt. Sanford ended the crackdown.
Shortly after, supervisor John Avalos proposed an ordinance urging the SFPD to let people on bikes treat stop signs as yield signs (similar to the Idaho Stop). The ordinance asks the SFPD to "make citations for bicyclists who safely yield at stop signs the lowest law-enforcement priority." Note the language here: ordinance, not law and lowest priority, not legal. See the thing is, San Francisco is subject to California vehicle code which says a stop is a stop for all road users. The city can't change state law.
For Avalos the first step was support. Five of his fellow supervisors quickly joined to create a majority and advance the proposal. It happened fast, it seemed to be easy, and the mood was optimistic.
Then Mayor Ed Lee pumped the brakes promising to veto the ordinance if it reached his desk (something he's only done 3 times in 4.5 years). Lee, who in response to the Supervisors said, "I'm not willing to trade away safety for convenience..." was quickly lampooned for his perceived misunderstanding of the issue.
If Mayor Lee does veto, Avalos will need a super majority of eight supervisors to override him. Avalos says he's confident he can gather the support but is currently short. And even if the eight needed supervisors sign on, the ordinance is non-binding and at the discretion of the SFPD, who have ignored similar enforcement priority ordinances in the past.
So is Avalos' ordinance merely lip service to a cycling constituency, or can it be a meaningful improvement for San Francisco commuters? That depends a lot on us as riders, on how loud we are during this fight, and how respectful we are of right-of-way if the ordinance is adopted. Josh Wilson, in a great piece in the San Francisco Chronicle even suggests:
"Success could also set the stage for innovation in Sacramento. Our representatives in the state Capitol could give their blessing to a San Francisco experiment by waiving state preemption of stop-sign regulations within city limits."
A true, legal Idaho Stop in San Francisco. That would be progress.
A hearing on Avalos' ordinance is expected at the end of October, and it could be adopted as early as November. In the meantime, write to your supervisor and let them know how you feel, as two more supervisors are needed to insure the ordinance sustains a mayoral veto. The SFBC can help.
I still get sceptical looks when I talk about using social media and network connections to evaluate a student (instead of the usual tests and assignments). My reasoning is that we can use the willingness of other people in the field to engage with a person (say) to evaluate his or her academic credibility. OK, it may be out there - but the same sort of idea has occurred to other people, including the people proposing to use social media to replace credit checks. "Facebook recently secured a patent for a technology which, among other things, could help determine your credit-worthiness based on the friends you keep on the social network."[Link] [Comment]
I first heard about the Fraunhofer Lines from Jamon Van Den Hoek, a remote sensing specialist, formerly of NASA and now at Oregon State, whose work on conflict ecology has inspired me for some time. In a presentation at Goldsmith’s last year, Van Den Hoek showed an extraordinary image: the full spectrum of the sun’s light, as it’s available to us on Earth. It’s full of gaps, dark patches, where frequencies have been occluded by the particles and interactions in the Earth’s atmosphere, in space, even in chemical reactions inside the Sun itself. Van Den Hoek’s point: you have to know the scope and limits of the material you’re working with; in this case, the shape of light itself.
These gaps are called “spectral lines”, and they were discovered by German optician Joseph von Fraunhofer in 1814, although they had been noticed by the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston in the previous decade. In order to test various glasses he produced with machines and furnaces of his own devising, Fraunhofer developed what is today known as the spectroscope, an instrument for analysing parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Splitting the sun’s beam through a prism, he found that its light contained some 574 fixed, dark lines, which are today known as Fraunhofer Lines – and, as optical technologies have improved, millions more of them have been discovered.
I have been fascinated with the politics of light for some time: how it is cast, how it is seen, and who sees it, in what frequencies and spectra. The Light of God and the Rainbow Plane are illustrations of a privileged form of vision, the ability to see through other spectra, a wider field of vision, encompassing not just space, but frequencies, invisible to the unaugmented human eye. Activities carried out in this domain should be subject to the same scrutiny as in the visible spectrum.
For several years I have been using Freedom of Information requests as one of my primary tools of investigation. In the UK, there is a legal right to request information from government bodies, and using this mechanism I have asked questions about land ownership and access in the City of London, the costs and operation of surveillance cameras, and the use of drones by the police services, among many others. One persistent subject of interest has been the use by London’s Metropolitan Police of vehicle data gathered by Transport for London, the capital’s transit authority.
I’ve written extensively about ANPR elsewhere, so here’s the short version: for more than a decade now, traffic moving around London has been monitored by thousands of cameras, which can identify individual vehicles by their license plates. First there was the Congestion Charge Zone, then the Low Emission Zone, and now hundreds more route monitoring cameras. Firstly, it took months just to discover the approximate number of these cameras, and their locations, from the relevant authorities, and then many more months to discover that, in contravention of numerous guarantees given to the public, all the data they gather is handed directly to the Police, who can use it in any way they see fit. It’s a vast surveillance network, possibly one of the most pervasive in the world, and the authorities don’t like to talk about it very much.
The first thing I learned in pursuing these questions is that these responses are rarely very useful. Freedom of Information is broken, and I have yet to learn anything by it which I did not subsequently confirm from information already in the public domain, obtain directly from press departments, or pursue all the way through an internal inquiry to an appeal to the Information Commissioner.
The other thing I learned is that it’s a useful tactic to ask the same question twice, to both ends of the discussion. So if you’re interested in correspondence between, or joint reports by, two organisations, then you fire off separate requests to both parties, and see what comes back. What is interesting is the shape of the refusal.
Fraunhofer’s spectral lines are absorption lines; that is, they are caused by the absorption of photons on their journey from the transmitter – in this case, the Sun – to the receiver. The same principle can applied in reverse, to measure the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, and tell us where vegetation is healthy, or where the earth is dry. As photons travel through space, they encounter numerous obstacles. Different elements along the way absorb and re-emit photons at different frequencies. Each element has a fixed set of absorption frequencies: Oxygen at 898.765, 822.696, 759.370, 686.719, 627.661 nm; Helium at 587.5618 nm, and so on. By splitting the light, and looking for the dark spots, we can see into the reactions which have produced the light in the first place, and the forces which have shaped it on its way to us. Something of the same is true of information as well, because information is just another signal, propagated from transmitter to receiver, and subject to all kinds of interference along the way.
Most of the documents I receive from Freedom of Information requests are redacted in some way; that is, certain sections, certain frequencies, from individual words to whole pages of text, have been removed, blacked out, censored. Obviously these are the most interesting parts. Here, for example, are three pages from the Metropolitan Police’s Fifth Annual Report to the Information Commissioner on the Operation of the Data Protection Certificate relating to ANPR Data. All of the information remaining is already in the public domain; everything else has been redacted. No light gets through.
Obtaining two copies of these documents however – a second set from the Home office – is more interesting. The patterns and the style are different. Behind the redactions is evidence of a human hand, an intentionality.
I wrote software to explore these redactions, to map and fingerprint them, in these and other documents. Here, for example, is every redaction in the US Senate’s Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (under redaction, all information regimes begin to look alike):
I wrote further software to map the position of these redactions, turning three-dimensional pages into data points, pinning down the occlusions and evasions, even as they floated in meaningless space. Split the beam through a prism, look for the dark spaces. Like the images which make up Dronestagram, attempting to stand in for the absent craters and piles of rubble, the meaning is in the omission. A spectroscope for information ends up recreating the Fraunhofer Lines:
This is that same report, the one about torture, rendered as a spectrum, one line per page. Its signature pattern is the cluster of lines which run down the right hand side; that’s the footnotes, where all the real information resides, heavily redacted.
Likewise, the middle image below is a close analysis of the ones to either side of it, two sets of documents from TfL and the Met compared, the subtle differences between each release providing the few clues we have to how this information has been massaged, refracted, diffused and redirected.
These images were created for The Glomar Response, an exhibition at Nome in Berlin which, in various works, addressed the relationship between government and citizens through their relative levels of access to information, their ability to see with the full spectrum available to them. Inevitably, it also dealt with the limits of such vision.
This tension – between the ability of governments to use technological and legal structures to obscure information, and the ability of engaged citizens and interested observers to read that information using almost exactly the same tools – is perhaps even more evident in a series of Fraunhofer Lines produced for the exhibition Art In The Age Of… Asymmetrical Warfare at the Witte de With Contemporary Art Institute in Rotterdam. These three realisations are based upon redacted documents released under Freedom of Information legislation by the Dutch government’s investigation into the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down over the Ukraine in July 2014.
As with other such episodes, little new was understood from this “release” of information. Meanwhile, citizen investigative journalists collaborated online to find, share, analyse, and geolocate information about the crash, the speed and transparency of their approach in sharp contrast to the reluctant and occluded official response.
Transparency, of course, is not the same as objectivity or truth, and it is precisely into that fissure that The Glomar Response delved. The Glomar Explorer was a ship built in the 1970s by the CIA to raise a lost Soviet submarine. The discovery and publicising of this covert mission led to the formulation of the now stock official response: “we can neither confirm nor deny”. It was the regular appearance of this phrase, coined to protect the darkest secrets of the Cold War, in correspondence with my local council, which led me, first to despair, and latterly to a new appreciation of the relationship between information and power.
Joseph von Fraunhofer played the sun’s light through a prism, and saw the elements of the universe in the form of spectral lines. Now, we see power in the absences where there should be information, in the sure knowledge that something always exists in the lacunae of official narratives, in the shadows of oft-told stories. New tools are every time a new way of seeing and representing the world around us; what we choose to reflect upon is the challenge they hold up to us.
After a slight delay in rolling out the feature, Apple announced today that App Thinning has been added to iOS with version iOS 9.0.2.
Originally announced at WWDC, the company was forced to delay the release of this feature late last month after an unspecified issue related to backing up on iCloud.
App Thinning allows developers to upload device specific executables to the App Store. So, instead of downloading a file that contains assets for devices they don’t own, an iPhone 4 owner, for example, can get one executable that contains only the things their smartphone needs to run the app in question. This helps reduce the file size of apps, allowing those with older Apple smartphones and tablets to better manage their device’s storage.
I've been looking for a commuting jacket for a few months and haven't found anything suitable.
Are there any casual-looking jackets with the following features for autumn/winter commuting in a city like London?
I've tried the following jackets and found them unsuitable:
Joe Caiati has a good primer on what diagnostics and usage data mean in iOS, what you can do, and when it's probably time to book an appointment at the Genius Bar:
I would liken the Diagnostics & Usage Data section to the Console on the Mac. There is a lot of noise in there, but sometimes you can find important information about issues related to your device. At its most basic definition, the Diagnostics & Usage Data section is a log of system events that happen on your iOS device. This log isn’t tracking your every move, but it is creating entries whenever events like an app crash happens.
Like the Console, unless you are an engineer at Apple, you probably won’t know what every string of text means, but I’d like to think I know enough to help you figure out what’s important. If you are interested in what’s going on in your iOS device, navigate to the section and let’s dig in.
Every word you write should be meaningful. We can measure this as the “meaning ratio,” which should approach 100%. Conversely, when the meaning ratio nears zero, you’ve got froth, not content, which is an accurate characterization of the job description I analyze today. The brilliant Edward Tufte analyzes graphics with the “data-ink ratio”: the proportion of ink in … Continue reading When the “meaning ratio” drops to zero, you’ve got a problem →
The post When the “meaning ratio” drops to zero, you’ve got a problem appeared first on without bullshit.
I hope Jack Dorsey does a great job as CEO of Twitter. The users and developers need to get a real feedback loop going. When Twitter has worked, been growing and exciting, it's been because ideas could develop in the user community, and then make their way back into the product. That part stopped working a number of years ago, and imho that's been why Twitter has been stagnating. No source of fresh wild ideas to be tamed and presented to and used by the people.
It's so obvious, to me at least, the biggest thing the community has been trying to get Twitter to see is that the channel of communication needs to include not just images and movies, but text too. Tweetstorms, as illustrated by Jack's announcement this morning, pioneered by Marc Andreessen, codified by my own Little Pork Chop, say clearly that a better way to communicate a chain of written ideas is much needed.
There are lots of possible approaches. I suggested one on Saturday in a little bit of code I hacked together, the idea borrowed from Facebook, which has had this working for quite some time, without much user pain, I assume.
Why this expansion is needed: simply, people don't click links, news needs to flow better, esp in light of the problems with ads and blockers, spyware, etc. This is all part of a swirl of issues that interrelate, and clearly limit Twitter's utility and obviously its growth.
I hope Jack sees the problem and has the guts to take it on.
PS: And please don't make developers wait for the new functionality. We should get access as soon as the features are public in the platform, or even better, before. That'll take some guts too, because some developers grow up to be Instagram. But maybe that's a good thing!
PPS: Cross-posted in full text without links on Facebook.
Google has announced the immediate availability of Android 6.0, dubbed Marshmallow, for the Nexus 5, Nexus 6, Nexus 7 (2013), Nexus 9 and Nexus Player.
While the over-the-air updates will begin rolling out in the coming days and weeks, factory images for the new version are now available to download and “sideload” onto existing devices for those who don’t want to wait.
Marshmallow offers a number of new features and improvements to performance for existing Nexus devices, the most notable being Now on Tap, a context-based extension of Google Now that scans the content on one’s screen to provide additional flavour. Along with deep linking, which allows developers to deploy “hooks” deep within their apps, Now on Tap lets you go from texting about ordering a pizza to actually doing so in one or tap clicks. In an interview with MobileSyrup, Google Now product manager, Aparna Chennapragada, said that the company is working to expand the scope of the feature, but figured its narrow focus would improve uptake in the short term.
Now on Tap also expands Google’s search parameters, allowing users to ostensibly access the company’s expansive knowledge graph at any time by holding down the virtual home button on any device running Android 6.0 or above. Now on Tap is built into the operating system itself, so like Google Now’s access button today, swiping up from the home button, OEMs cannot disable Now on Tap.
Android 6.0 Marshmallow also adds a number of important privacy features, allowing users to manually set app permissions, limiting the types of system-level content developers have access to.
The update improves performance throughout the OS, too, and adds a fingerprint sensor API for devices that support it, allowing third-party developers to add support into their apps.
Factory images of Android 6.0 Marshmallow are now available at Google’s developer page, so get downloading!
There seems to be a pivotal change in the conversation underway with respect to climate change and fossil fuels. Loud and negative voices may rise again, possibly, but … this is becoming less likely.
Here are a few recent examples.
One is Mark Carney, current Governor of the Bank of England (former head of the Bank of Canada). He warns insurance executives, and anyone else who will listen, that fossil fuels are looking like a risky investment area and that societal and financial turmoil is becoming more likely. (Globe story here.)
Second is Premier Rachel Notley, whose quasi-commie NDP (;>} ) won power in Alberta, Canada’s notorious fossil fuel empire (previously proud home of the tar sands). Albeit with long timelines, she is uttering previously unspeakable words that must strike terror into the oil and gas industry execs there. (Guardian story here.)
Third is Gary Mason, a very well-connected Canadian newspaper opinion writer. The publication (the Globe and Mail), is usually quite conservative, and is heavily corporate-controlled. He discusses the Carney speech, and recent polls in Fossilville (a.k.a. Alberta). He concludes that a post-carbon future is closer than we think, so ignoring it is edging closer to political suicide. (Globe column here.)
The common thread in these opinions is that no trees are being hugged, no polar bears or spotted owls make their appearance. Instead, the arguements feature cold hard bucks, and where they will and won’t come from in the future. It’s loud voices from the financial and political worlds.
When the medical world ups its game and contributes its voice, the chorus grows louder, and harder to refute. Add this to the religious voices (thanks, Pope Francis), and maybe we can make serious progress.
It’s Almost Bike to Work Week
And there are over $20,000 in prizes!
The next Bike to Work Week will be taking place Oct. 26 – Nov. 1. Register now to start or join a team and you could win fabulous prizes including a Bike Trip for 2 to Vietnam from Exodus Travels! You’ll also be entered to win our Earlybird Registration Prize. …
By registering for Bike to Work Week today, inviting co-workers, and logging your trips, we can continue to measure the incredible support for bike commuting in Metro Vancouver – and you can win prizes at the same time!
Another puzzling result. For the third month in a row, the number of counted bike rides has decreased by comparison to 2014.
Let the speculation begin.
Say hello to Denise and Jeff Leigh, who met me on Oct 1 when I checked the numbers:
This just out from Vancouver. I guess they are not that impressed by this argument published in the New York Times recently, saying recycling is mostly inefficient. Oh well, more opportunities for me to feel virtuous, aside from peeling the labels off my cans and putting cans in one place, labels in another.
The City’s recycling program is changing and expanding. Starting October 2015, the City will implement the first of three phases of separate glass collection, beginning with city-serviced Multi-Family buildings (apartments, condos and townhomes).
Phase 1 – City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings
Starting: October 5 – December 31, 2015
Phase 2 – Single Family Residences + City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings (on single family curbside routes)
Starting: January 11 – March 31, 2016
Phase 3 – Non-City-Serviced Multi-Family Buildings
Starting: May 1 – July 31, 2016
City-serviced Multi-family buildings will receive a new “glass bottle + jars” recycling cart shortly. Residents are asked to recycle all glass bottles and jars into this cart as soon as it arrives. Deposit glass containers (wine, spirits, coolers, beer and juice bottles) should still be returned to a depot for refund.
Additional updates to the expanded recycling program include:
* All newspapers and mixed paper are now accepted together and can be placed in the mixed paper cart.
* Paper cups, milk cartons, TetraPaks, empty aerosol cans (non-paint) and frozen dessert boxes can now be recycled in the mixed containers cart.
Residents can learn how to dispose of items for recycling with the online Waste Wizard tool. For a full list of items accepted as part of the City’s recycling program, or to find out how to recycle items not accepted in the City’s program, visit vancouver.ca/wastewizard<http://www.vancouver.ca/wastewizard>. By properly recycling materials, you help Keep Vancouver Spectacular!
The collection of separate glass supports the City’s contract agreement with Multi-Materials BC (MMBC) and aligns with the City’s commitment to Zero Waste as part of our Greenest City Action Plan.
Additional information regarding separate glass collection for Single Family Residences and non-city-serviced Multi-Family buildings will be provided as these changes are phased in. Stay tuned!
For more information on the City’s expanded recycling program and separate glass collection, please visit vancouver.ca/recycle<http://www.vancouver.ca/recycle>.
SURREY ‘SHOULD GO FIRST’
Vancouver should strongly support Surrey’s plans for light rapid transit even if its own Broadway subway line is delayed, a forum on Surrey’s transportation future was told last week. Former B.C. premier and Vancouver mayor Mike Harcourt and Gordon Price, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program, both said they agreed Surrey should be at the top of the priority list for transit projects. …
Price said to applause from the Surrey Board of Trade audience: “Surrey should go fi rst. It deserves the next dollar. “When you’re talking about the fastest-growing region, where the future is, you have this window.” Price said the Broadway subway is unlikely to get the funding soon, although that needs to be addressed. “So Vancouver should get behind Surrey and say ‘We’re here for you.’ And then let’s get in with it. Let’s build that system.”
Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner said Surrey is expected to add another 30,000 residents over 30 years, making it the most populous city in B.C. … “If we were to upgrade all of our roads, to capacity, it will satisfy 12 per cent of that demand,” she said. “You know where that leads to — into gridlock.” …
She said light rail has been chosen over SkyTrain technology because it’s a “simple dollar and cents issue” that will allow Surrey to service more communities with more frequent stops, which will attract more retail and service uses, with 41 million square feet of redevelopment capacity around the stations. Hepner said the provincial government has committed to pay for one third of the project’s cost and that all three major federal parties have promised funding. “But the regional funding remains elusive,” she said. “I expect that will take some form of mobility pricing. How we work that out and how we develop that funding model is going to take time and certainly the collaboration of mayors and the province is going to be necessary for that.”
Harcourt said he thinks congestion charging is a good idea. Price said mobility pricing is a tax “on something that we have previously taken for granted” as something that was free, and the issue would require exceptional leadership.
Both Harcourt and Price said there should be no more plebiscites or referenda on transportation funding. “If the premier will not clarify there won’t be another referendum, that’s the end of regional planning for the foreseeable future,” Price said. “How can you plan with any success of implementation if you know you’ve got to go to a referendum. “If we believe in this place, if we believe in that vision, we want our leadership to make some tough choices and that referendum has to be off the table.”
Harcourt agreed: “I think you’re elected to lead and you don’t have referendums and plebiscites to fi nd out if transportation infrastructure should go ahead. I don’t ever want to see that happen again. That was a big, bad mistake.” …
UPDATE: Just heard from a Victoria reporter that Peter Fassbender has confirmed that there will have to be another referendum for any new funding source. This would, of course, be disastrous for the region, but apparently event the MLAs and cabinet ministers who represent us don’t understand or don’t really care. But would they allow the vehicle levy, already in the TransLink legslation, to proceed if the Mayors Council voted for it?
My interview with Jane McAlevey has been published at Jacobin. The podcast is available here. Due to a lot of upheaval in my personal life (moving and a new job), there was no podcast last week and this will have to do in lieu. Normal podcasting resumes next week!
Michal Rozworski: You’ve argued that organized labor today doesn’t face an external crisis of circumstances, but a crisis of strategy. Things are bad, but for instance if we look back at the ’30s or earlier, working and living conditions weren’t rosy but we still saw huge mobilizations and stronger movement than we have today. If we have a crisis of strategy, what are we missing? What strategies will work today?
Jane McAlevey: It’s an important question, and I should clarify a little bit. There are external factors; I don’t want to dismiss that. The changing nature of capitalism has made things very difficult, so have trade agreements and globalization. As a self-criticism, I think I sometimes come off completely dismissive of external conditions. I mean to put an emphasis on what we control.
I’m fine to talk about globalization till the cows come home. We know it’s there; we know it’s a problem. The question is, what are we doing about it?
I want to focus on a debate that we can actually change. If we do change our strategy, I think we can win again. The reason I pound so much on internal movement failure is because it’s in the movement’s control. We’re not going to change the direction of global trade tomorrow. What we can do tomorrow is sit up as a movement and decide we’ve got the wrong strategies.
There has been this recognition in the last twenty years or so, in the USA in particular, that we have a crisis. The conditions are very difficult, the employer offensive is very difficult. The problem is that the way the US labor movement took the decision to look for additional leverage was to walk away from workers in the workplace and develop these very sophisticated, heavily staffed campaigns — staffed by, no offense, very educated white men who were given written tests in the application process on reading financial spreadsheets. And this was to hire people to think strategically in the labor movement. To me, this summed it all up. The question wasn’t: do you know how to talk to a worker?
The development of the corporate campaign has been a colossal disaster. It’s an evolution in some ways of taking agency away from workers at every level inside the labor movement. The key strategic pivot we have to make is having a ton of faith in the capacities of ordinary rank-and-file workers and in the ordinary intelligence of workers. We have to prioritize our strategy on teaching, skilling up, and training tens of thousands of workers how to fight.
Organizing isn’t rocket science, but it is a serious skill and a craft. We have to build an army of people in the field who can actually contend with capital on the local level. Not talking to workers and having a strategy that fundamentally avoided workers for several decades is what we need to change and what we can change.
How do we, as a labor movement and a Left, find a language that really speaks to people again and relates to them? A language that isn’t mediated by financial spreadsheets or —
Or by heavy left rhetoric that’s inaccessible to people! I agree with you on this, but, first, we need to worry less about how we talk and worry more about listening. We stopped listening to workers and that’s part of disregarding the intelligence of ordinary people.
We had this arrogant leadership team that came into the US labor movement after 1995. Arrogance was the death of what happened. They just thought “we’re smarter than workers, smarter than everyone.”
The steps to a good organizing conversation, to a one-on-one, are a framework to how we can be talking collectively as well. There, it’s 70-30: 70 percent listening and 30 percent talking. Even the 30 percent talking is really agitational; it’s a series of specific questions that allow people to begin to self-analyze the crisis in their life. No one walks up to a worker and says, “You know what the problem with capitalism is? Your boss is really f’in you.” Workers know their boss is screwing them!
The framework of the conversation is so important. People have to engage in self-discovery through face-to-face conversation. It’s not Facebooking, it’s not tweeting, it’s not any of this crap — those are mobilizing tools. Organizing tools and an organizing conversation are literally about a process of self-discovery. People begin to systematize and analyze what’s going wrong in their life…
So it is people’s own experience, moving toward something broader, that can then bring them out together.
Absolutely. People have to come to their own conclusion that there is something deeply wrong with the political economy system that we have.
Our assumptions about who’s going to think what are so often wrong. That’s why it’s so fun do an organizing conversation with just a worker on the door. You can pull up to a door, see a conservative bumper sticker or something else and start making assumptions. But then you go in there, and through the process of a good, long, face-to-face conversation, almost every time, the individual comes out pissed off at their boss, understands that their boss is connected to a bigger system, and starts for the first time to think, “I can do something about this if we act collectively.”
The main thing is that we have to get people to understand collective action. That’s the biggest challenge.
This makes me think of Fight for 15, which is doing this in some ways, taking people and connecting them to something broader. In other ways, however, it seems to fall more on the side of what you call mobilizing. We’re seeing pushing of the core issue of minimum-wage increases but less actual organizing or larger collective structures coming out of it. Is there tension between these goals? How do these new movements relate to what you consider organizing?
The entire focus of my next book is an analysis, through a bunch of case studies, of what I’m calling mobilizing models versus organizing models. The Fight for 15 stuff is very much a mobilizing model.
Here’s the thing: we need to do lots of mobilizing, no question. I don’t want to be painted as anti-mobilizing. The problem is that there isn’t any depth to the Fight for 15 campaign. We call it the Berlin Rosen campaign: one hot-shot media firm that’s gotten something like $50 to 70 million from SEIU to paint, through social media, the illusion of a huge movement.
Now, in Chicago they’ve got some real work on the ground going on, the original Sea-Tac campaign was a real organizing campaign — in fact, the very first real $15 campaign, was the one at Sea-Tac Airport. It was worker-led, there’s unionization coming out of it, and they won $15 now. They didn’t get a phased-in model that’s very complicated, where the minimum wage becomes $15 in 2022, when it’s no longer $15 because it isn’t indexed. We should be looking more closely at that original campaign rather than the mostly publicity, social media campaign we have now.
Of course, it’s great that people are getting a raise. A dollar an hour here and there is a good thing, even if it’s phased in and complicated. The problem is that isn’t also doing any deep organizing.
I was having this conversation with some people from the climate movement recently, and I challenged them on organizing. They said that the climate is going so fast that their job isn’t organizing — they’re all mobilizing. Everywhere I go, in every sector of the movement, people say that everything is so urgent that they’re just mobilizing and someone else has to worry about organizing. That is the problem: everyone is focused on mobilizing.
There are very few places where people are actually trying to figure out how to have live, face-to-face conversations that allow for self-discovery by the working class. And where it is still happening, it tends to be in the labor movement. So for all the criticisms that it’s easy to heap on the labor movement, there is at least still real organizing going on.
And that’s something that doesn’t happen through bombarding people through Facebook memes, where it’s just the same people seeing them.
Right, that’s the problem when we’re doing just a mobilizing model: all we’re doing is talking to the already-convinced and we’re not doing base expansion. Real organizing is about focusing on people who are not yet convinced and not yet involved in our movement.
We have to do several things to rebuild a powerful movement. One, we have to focus on the people who are not yet with us, and we’re not reaching them through Facebooking and tweeting. Two, we have to be clear that there’s a difference between an activist and an organic leader. If we want to get to scale, we need to recognize that there are organic leaders who have influence among our ranks, among ordinary people, and we have a very clear model to identify them.
In the labor movement, we actually have these systematic methods for identifying leaders and distinguishing them from activists. We can then focus our training and political education work on the leaders because they themselves then become massive replicators of our work and bring along lots of other people.
An activist-centric movement, which we have now, isn’t working.
But the conditions for something broader are there. Especially since the crisis, people see what’s going on, they identify as working class rather than middle class and there’s this open space, but we’re not using it and not reaching people.
We just talk to ourselves and it just makes me mad. I used to go to more anti-globalization protests, direct actions and other things when I was young, but I just stopped. We’re not winning if we’re just talking to all the same people. It looks great, we congratulate ourselves when we have a huge direct action, but it adds up to nothing. All I want to do is focus on the undecideds.
So let’s focus on organizing, then. You’ve said that health and education are two really key, strategic sectors. With the decline of manufacturing or at least unionized manufacturing, some of the largest remaining organized workplaces are in these sectors. What is the strategic position of workers in these sectors and how can the labor movement build strategies around them?
There’s several different components to why it’s so valuable to focus on health and education. From a social perspective, these workers actually matter: having high-quality healthcare and having high-quality public schools are good things.
Beyond that, from a strategic, base-building, organizing perspective, health and education workers present several opportunities. First, they’re mission-driven: they care a ton about what they’re doing. So if the employer puts the squeeze on them, they’re going to fight.
Second, these workers are non-tradeable — so far. They haven’t completely figured out yet how to replace a nurse or a teacher with a robot (they might be trying but it’s going to be a while despite the rumors) or how to completely offshore the work.
Finally, health and education workers have these incredible organic links to the broader community. If the point of organizing is base expansion, then it’s important that these workers are not just ready to put up a fight in their own workplaces, but that they can expand the base into the community due to their special, organic links.
What’s so important about the stories I like to tell is how quickly it’s possible to create the kind of transformation I’m talking about. When I went into Nevada, we had a demoralized — frankly, bad — union that workers had no interest in. In three and a half years, the whole union turned around and organized the whole market. We can have huge, transformational change in very little time when we do the organizing work right.
We saw this in Chicago. In a series of interviews I did, the Chicago teachers were very clear that they couldn’t win without the community. They invested a lot of front-loaded energy into building really strategic relationships all over Chicago.
When that mayor [Rahm Emanuel] tried to turn the whole community on them with the kind of messaging we see so often against public sector workers — “I don’t have a pension, I want yours” — it didn’t work. Why? Because the teachers had done really strategic, brilliant, and principled work with their communities ahead of time.
So, yes, I think we should spend a lot of time in health care and education in our movement.
I want to look at the flip side of that: that in order to build the kind of community solidarity you’re talking about, we need to take on the resentment — cynically manufactured, but still very real — between private- and public-sector workers. The private-sector worker can say her pay is coming from the boss’s pocket, but it’s her taxes going to this nurse or this teacher. How do we fight this?
This is a really good conversation to have and one we’re not having enough strategically.
First of all, I reject the entire concept that there is a public sector, and even more profoundly, that there is a well-defined private sector. It’s a constructed narrative on the part of corporations and capital for very strategic reasons, including the one we’re talking about in terms of divide and conquer.
In fact, corporations are sucking taxpayer monies; the subsidies are massive. If you do a serious full-cost accounting of the large corporations, it’s amazing what you’ll see. I repeat this line all the time: there is no private sector. I made this point in an article in the Nation once and a bunch of well-known lefty economists in the US sent me emails saying this is an important message. I’d never gotten fan mail from economists before!
My line is: there’s just the economy.
It’s socialism for capitalists in the US.
Exactly! Here’s how we took this kind of divide and conquer on in Nevada. Very quickly after I got there — to organize private-sector hospitals in a strategic market — we realized a profound attack was coming on public-sector pensions.
I remember waking up one of the first mornings and there was an editorial cartoon on the front page of the extremely right-wing major daily in town, of a firefighter putting out a fire with a hose that was empty save for a big bloat in the middle that said, “Firefighter Pension.” The fight was on.
We started to hear the right-wing message coming from workers immediately: both from the public-sector workers as a form of self-blame (“yeah, we get too much”) and the workers in the so-called private sector hospitals. We realized we had to go straight at this, especially with a ballot initiative coming. What we needed was to have the private hospital workers — for example, registered nurses who are always very popular — leading the message about why taxes matter.
So we organized a mass educational campaign. We created an educational team and a Powerpoint presentation; we began to train rank-and-file leaders. And then we had rank-and-file leaders and staff doing roadshows, where just in the first six months we talked to over four thousand workers in the union. We went straight at the idea of a subsidized private sector and argued that it’s just a game to take down the last pensions in America.
We would take a dollar bill and break down for the private-sector health care workers what part of every dollar in their paycheck comes from public taxpayer money, what part from insurance, and what part from so-called private pay. There was almost no private pay, and this was really revolutionary for the private health care workers. This lay the groundwork for a campaign that would win them the same standard as the public-sector workers.
We actually bargained defined-benefit pensions in private hospitals in Nevada. We said they need to win the same contract that the public sector has because that’s what every worker deserves. We took it on straight on. We had mass education; it wasn’t tweeting and it wasn’t Facebook. It was mass, full-on political education with rank-and-file workers.
And it worked! We built an amalgamated union of public and private sector who stood up for each other at every turn in that state. We went at the division by doing radical political education.
This seems to really get at what you mean by base expansion. You went outside that bubble.
We’re not fearing the rhetoric. We’re going right at it. Let’s go! I’ll have that debate with anyone. We know the Right’s rhetoric, for example about taking away someone’s pension because someone else doesn’t have one, is ridiculous — but we run away from it because it seems like a hard conversation.
Organizing is about having hard conversations. It is fundamentally about having hard conversations with people and not running away from hard issues. You can’t win a union campaign in the US environment if you don’t do that.
We’re looking for a rare combination of technical skills and strength in collaboration and consultation on the use and integration of a wide array of technologies in the new Taylor Institute building. It’s going to be an extremely important role, working with everyone in the Taylor Institute, and from across campus, to effectively use the shiny new stuff that’s being installed in the building (literally – right now, installation is under way!). Mobile collaboration huddle stations. High end audiovisual systems – with laser powered projectors! Working with folks who are making cool stuff in the Faculty Design Studio. And lots of other stuff that we’ll all be figuring out together once the building opens in April 2016.
If you know anyone who would like to come work with a pretty amazing team, send them our way
Rogers today announced a new initiative that, once rolled out, will offer gigabit home internet access to millions of Canadian homes.
But those whose homes are not within reach of Rogers’ new speeds can now sign up for new 30GB and 60GB monthly wireless plans, which the company rolled out today as well.
Offered at $175 per month and $325 per month respectively, plus the monthly cost of phone service (between $35 and $60 per line) the new plans are capacious enough to satisfy the most bandwidth-intensive users — or groups of users, since Rogers allows data plans to be shared with up to ten users.
In reality, the 30GB plan is new only in the sense that Rogers removed it during the transition to Share Everything+, and has since brought it back, albeit at a slightly lower price (the data portion used to cost $190).
The 60GB plan, which works out to an company-low $5.41 per gigabyte, is new, and the largest data bucket offered by the Big Three. Others, such as regional carrier SaskTel, MTS and Wind Mobile, offer unlimited data for significantly less, but implement fair use policies that will throttle speeds above a certain threshold.
As part of Rogers’ new Share Everything+ strategy, the new plans offer the choice of two years of Spotify Premium access for up to three phone lines, or a single Shomi or Texture by Next Issue promo code for two years.
The new plans also allow for various incarnations of voice and text under a single account. For example, the main account holder can pay $60 and receive a subsidized phone on contract for two years, while the rest can bring their own devices at $40 per month, or choose to spend more for their phones up front under the Smart Tab system and spend $50 per month for access. Similarly, users no longer need to sign up for unlimited Canada-wide calling, but can choose to save $5 per month for what Rogers considers “local calling,” which brings back the notion of artificial calling areas, bringing the cost of phone service down to $35, $45 and $55 respectively.
Rogers’ new Share Everything plans are available starting today.
Also known as the silliest name for an operating system ever. I have no idea what Steve would say, but I cannot help but wonder…
I’ve been running the GM for a couple of weeks, and aside from a few tussles with MenuMeters (which I had to rebuild from source based on this port) and a few, erm… productivity apps that required an update to stop crashing randomly, I have had no relevant issues with it so far other than the usual development adjustments that come with a new OS.
Like Yosemite, it’s an iterative upgrade with a little more polish. And, like before, I was largely unfazed by the tweaks to Mail.app, the window management features (Split View is nice, but I’ve been using Moom for so long to tile my windows that it’s not worth writing home about) or the usual barrelful of minutiae.
What is worth writing about is that El Capitan, through the magic of Metal or otherwise, finally fixed a bunch of graphics performance issues I had with Yosemite, with the immediately noticeable result that my 5-year-old MacBook Pro no longer slowed to a crawl when I plugged in an external display — and my home Mac mini, which predates it by another magnitude of obsolescence, is now perfectly at ease driving two full HD displays.
So yeah, two thumbs up.
Startups can be crazy, exciting places to work. While it can often feel like there are more balls in the air than hands to catch them, somehow everything ends up getting done. This is because, many times in startups, people from one department jump into another department to tackle the tasks at hand. The collaborative,... Read more »
The post Cross-functional support: Why it’s good for your company appeared first on Desk.com.
Continuing the declining profit margin trend HTC has experienced over the course of the last few months, the Taiwan-based company revealed that it lost approximately US$151-million after taxes and operating costs over a three month period ending in September.
HTC’s overall revenue dropped nearly US$367-million this quarter to US$655-million, resulting in a net loss of US$137-million before tax and operating costs. Interestingly, HTC’s latest financial reports don’t include specifics related to the number of devices the company has shipped over the last few months.
However, there is a bright side to these numbers. Last quarter the company lost US$245-million on revenue of $US1-billion. While the 35 percent drop in revenue suggests HTC’s flagship HTC One M9 probably isn’t selling as well as the company hoped, the drop in loss likely means that the struggling company’s loss-to-revenue ratio largely remains unchanged. In other words, things aren’t getting worse for HTC, but they also aren’t getting any better.
HTC’s most recently released flagship device, the One M9, has taken criticism from both fans and critics for its lack of innovation. Apart from a few minor hardware upgrades, the company’s M9 smartphone is largely the same as 2014’s HTC M8.
The company’s future success is pegged on the upcoming One A9, which still hasn’t been revealed, as well as HTC’s surprisingly impressive virtual reality headset, the Vive. However, it’s highly unlikely one smartphone, regardless of how impressive it ends up being, will turn around the company’s fortunes.
HTC’s Aero is expected to be released and revealed at some point in the near future. The A9 is rumoured to come equipped with a Snapdragon 617 oca-core processor, a 5-inch 1080p AMOLED display, 2GB of RAM, 16GB expandable internal storage. HTC’s new smartphone will also likely ship with Android 6.0 Marshmallow pre-installed on the device and include a built-in fingerprint sensor.
Related article: HTC One M9 review
It looks like the 4K content revolution is coming a little sooner in Canada than some might have expected.
Rogers today announced that it plans to offer new gigabit internet speeds and a 4K set top box, as well as a commitment to live broadcast a variety of 4K video content, both in the form of live sports and television/movies. According to Rogers, this new internet tier is called “Rogers Ignite Gigabit internet” and is set to roll out across downtown Toronto this year, and to the company’s entire cable audience by the end of 2016.
The technology is based on the new DOCSIS 3.1 standard, allowing Rogers to send gigabit speeds over existing cable lines using a more efficient transport system and better content encoding.
“4K TV sets have been in the market for some time and 40 per cent of all TV sales are likely to be 4K this holiday season,” said Guy Laurence, president and CEO of Rogers Communications. “However, until now live TV broadcasts in 4K have been few and far between and customers have not been able to get 4K set top boxes.
“We are solving both problems in one go with the world’s largest commitment to 4K broadcasting and a new 4K set top box for customers that will allow customers to see sports and entertainment in the highest resolution and with the fastest internet speeds. 4K gets you closer to the action than the linesman and first base coach, and HDR brings those images to life with intense colour and contrast,” said Laurence.
Along with Rogers’ announcement regarding faster internet speeds, the company also revealed it plans to give subscribers access to over 500 hours of live sports in 2016. 4K live events include every Toronto Blue Jays 2016 season home game and 20 marquee NHL games, as well as support for 4K content from Netflix and Shomi.
Rogers’ press release also mentions that Netflix’s original content is also currently available to stream in 4K, and that Rogers’ new gigabit Internet will allow for more reliable Netflix streams because of a new connection directly to Netflix servers. “[We] will connect the Rogers network to Netflix servers, enabling a better Netflix experience with faster start-up times and superior image quality. Netflix will also be available on select cable set top boxes and Android devices from Rogers,” said Netflix in a statement.
While Rogers’ announcement regarding the company’s new gigabit internet is not particularly mobile-relevant yet, the move towards offering a faster internet connection will enable more consistent in-home streaming when it comes to set top boxes playing 4K content. To put Rogers’ new internet connection speed in perspective, one gigabit is 1000 megabits. This means that Rogers’ new connection works out to approximately 125 megabytes per second, a number that’s more than fast enough to handle 4K content streaming.
The service will reportedly cost $150 per month for 1000 megabits download speeds and 50 megabits upload.
While 4K is the future of video, the amount of content available in Ultra HD continues to be sparse. Rogers is the second Canadian telecom to announce plans to support 4K content, after Videotron owner Quebecor, marking a shift in the industry. Bell and Telus independently announced plans to install gigabit fiber networks in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, respectively.
However, it’s important to point out that widespread adoption of 4K isn’t expected for a few years and that an ultra high-definition television is required to take full advantage of 4K resolutions.
We’re happy to announce the immediate availability of major updates across the Lightroom ecosystem today!
New Features – Lightroom desktop
Dehaze as a Local Adjustment*
We added Dehaze as a global adjustment in the Lightroom CC 2015.1 release and are excited to see the widespread interest in the feature. We wanted to extend the functionality, and I’m happy to announce that you can now apply Dehaze as a Local Adjustment. This means that you can use Dehaze with the Radial Filter, Graduated Filter and Local Adjustment Brush.
* Please note that this feature is not available in the standalone version of Lightroom 6
We redesigned the Import experience to make finding and importing your photos easier and more visual. The redesign was driven by our desire to make the import workflow more explicit and clear. The workflow is 1. Select a source, 2. Select images 3. Choose any import settings (optional) and 4. Import.
The revamped Import experience is based on customer feedback and we’re excited to hear what you think.
Improvements to “Import from Photoshop Elements” feature
In addition to Import, we’ve revamped the Import from Photoshop Elements experience. Now you can migrate the images from your Photoshop Elements catalog into Lightroom easily. To do so, click on the Photoshop Elements icon in the “Add Photos” screen (step 1 from above). Select the Elements catalog and click the Import button. Lightroom will handle the rest for you automatically.
New Features – Lr mobile 1.3 (Android)
Download the updates from the Google Play store here
New Features – Lr mobile 2.o (iOS)
New Camera Support in Lightroom 6.2
* Please note that SuperRAW files from the DxO ONE are not supported.
New Tethered Camera Support in Lightroom 6.2
New Lens Profile Support in Lightroom 6.2
|Canon EF||Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM|
|Canon EF||Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM|
|Canon EF||SIGMA 24-35mm F2 DG HSM A015|
|Canon EF||TAMRON 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 DiII VC B018E|
|Canon EF||TAMRON SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD F012E|
|Canon EF||TAMRON SP 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD F013E|
|Canon FD||Canon FD 28mm F2.8|
|Canon FD||Canon FD 50mm F1.4|
|Canon FD||Canon FD 135mm F2.5 S.C.|
|CONTAX 645||Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/45|
|CONTAX 645||Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/35|
|DJI||PHANTOM 3 Standard (DNG and JPEG)|
|Leica M||Leica Summilux-M 28mm F1.4 ASPH.|
|Leica M||Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/21 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/28 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss C Biogon T* 2,8/35 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss C Biogon T* 4,5/21 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/15 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Distagon T* 4/18 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM|
|Leica M||Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 4/85 ZM|
|M42||Asahi PENTAX Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8 M42|
|M42||Fujifilm FUJINON 50mm f/1.4 M42|
|M42||Fujifilm FUJINON 55mm f/1.8 M42|
|MFT||Voigtlander MFT 10.5mm f/0.95 Nokton Aspherical|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MC ROKKOR 58mm F1.2|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MC ROKKOR-PF 55mm F1.7|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MC ROKKOR-X PG 50mm F1.4|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MC TELE ROKKOR-PE 200mm F4.5|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MC W.ROKKOR-HG 35mm F2.8|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MD 50mm F2|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MD Celtic 135mm F3.5|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MD ROKKOR-X 45mm F2|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MD ROKKOR-X 50mm F1.7|
|Minolta SR||Minolta MD W.ROKKOR-X 28mm F2.8|
|Nikon F||Minolta MD W.ROKKOR-X 28mm F2.8|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f2.8-4E ED VR|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR|
|Nikon F||Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8 AI|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4 AIS|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8 AI|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR-H Auto 50mm f/2|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR-P.C Auto 105mm f/2.5 AI|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR-S.C Auto 50mm f/1.4|
|Nikon F||Nikon NIKKOR-UD Auto 20mm f/3.5 AI|
|Nikon F||SIGMA 24-35mm F2 DG HSM A015|
|Nikon F||TAMRON 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 DiII VC B018N|
|Nikon F||TAMRON SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD F012N|
|Nikon F||TAMRON SP 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD F013N|
|Parrot||Bebop Drone (DNG and JPEG)|
|PENTAX||HD PENTAX-D FA 24-70mm F2.8ED SDM WR|
|SIGMA||SIGMA 24-35mm F2 DG HSM A015|
Please select Help > Updates to use the update mechanism in the Creative Cloud app.