canon – Auto focus won’t work in viewfinder on Aperture priority mode

My camera (Canon Rebel t7i) won’t auto focus in manual or aperture priority mode in viewfinder. (It works perfectly in liveview)

Maybe it’s important to say that I’ve never shot in manual mode so I wanted to learn how to shoot in Aperture Priority mode. Auto focus isn’t working in viewfinder though. I used 2 different lenses (canon 50 mm 1.8 and the kit lens) It doesn’t work on both. I tried resetting the camera. Still nothing.

It does work in auto mode in the viewfinder.

Am I doing something wrong or is something broken?

terminology – Is there a common industry term to describe moving a task down in priority to an undefined “later” time?

A note for the moderators: this question is looking for INDUSTRY terminology (like SCRUM, Spike, Big O, Visitor Patter, etc) terminology, not opinions about how I should speak.

Let’s say that in our ticketing system a task will involve doing A, B, C, and D.

While doing the task, I find that doing C will require too large an investment for now and is not very high priority.

I have been saying something like “Let’s do A, B, and D, but I think we should punt on C for now”.

I looked up “punt on” and it seems to mean only to “not do”, not to put off until later. At least that’s what the results in Google told me.

Am I using “punt on” wrong? Is there a better term for this?

terminology – Is there an INDUSTRY STANDARD term to describe moving a task down in priority to an undefined “later” time?

A note for the moderators: this question is looking INDUSTRY STANDARD (like SCRUM, Big O, Visitor Patter, etc) terminology, not opinions about how I should speak.

Let’s say that in our ticketing system a task will involve doing A, B, C, and D.

While doing the task, I find that doing C will require too large an investment for now and is not very high priority.

I have been saying something like “Let’s do A, B, and D, but I think we should punt on C for now”.

I looked up “punt on” and it seems to mean only to “not do”, not to put off until later. At least that’s what the results in Google told me.

Am I using “punt on” wrong? Is there a better term for this?

query – Order posts by date, but also give priority for a specific term

is it possible to query posts ordering them by date, but also give priority for a specific term? I want posts from this term to be always on top, followed by the posts of the other taxonomies.

$paged = ( get_query_var('paged') ) ? get_query_var('paged') : 1;
    $query_args = array(
    'post_type' => 'topics',
    'posts_per_page' => 12,
    'paged' => $paged,
);
$query = new WP_Query($query_args);
if($query -> have_posts()):while($query -> have_posts()):$query -> the_post();

western europe – A little problem in European traffic rules: Priority of a car sitting on a “stepstone” island

Here is an intersection which always gives me trouble:

Image of an intersection

  • The usual continental European traffic rules apply;
  • There are two lanes which have right-of-way, one going towards the North-West, and one towards the South-East ;
  • There is a side-road coming in from the East (is a highway off-ramp, actually) and a side-road going to the West (a highway on-ramp)
  • In the picture, the light blue area cannot be used as it is a bus lane, but that is not important here.

If you have a car A driving along the red path, it may encounter heavy traffic on both NW and SE lanes. There is a little “stepstone island” in between the lanes so that you can proceed across the NW lane if it is free, then wait for the SE lane to clear.

While car A is waiting on the “stepstone”, a car B initially on the NW lane may wish to turn to its left in order to proceed West, then also wait for the SE lane to clear.

Once the SE lane is clear, you have to decide which of A and B goes first. I am of the impression that it should be B as B is coming off the lan which has right-of-way but apparently opinions on this diverge, leading to hesitancy.

Is there an applicable rule to decide who goes first without having to resort to casting dice?

data structures – Memory allocation of priority queues

An associative dictionary is any data structure which maps keys to values. Binary search trees, hash tables, and B-trees are all examples of associative dictionaries. It is incorrect to say that an associative dictionary must be a binary search tree.

Similarly, a priority queue is any data structure which allows insertion in any order and removal in priority order. A binary heap is an example of a priority queue, but it is incorrect to say that a priority queue must be a binary heap.

There are lots of other data structures which implement priority queues, including n-ary heaps (for n greater than 2), binomial heaps, Fibonacci heaps, Brodal queues, van Emde Boas trees, and many more besides.

And that’s leaving aside the issue that a binary heap doesn’t strictly need to be stored in contiguous memory. Any storage scheme can be used as long as it can be indexed like an array and supports $O(1)$ access time.

❕NEWS – SEC: We Will Give Priority To Crypto Money | NewProxyLists

The SEC shared a post about cryptocurrencies on their Twitter account. In the statement made, it was reported that crypto coins will be given priority during the year.

Ekran Görüntüsü (1622).png

What will be controlled in the statements was stated as follows:
— “Among other areas, reviews will focus on reviewing whether they are working consistently with registrants’ statements, whether firms are processing orders in accordance with customer orders, and compliance with trade recommendations made in mobile applications. Reviews of market participants interested in digital assets will continue to assess: whether the investments benefit investors; portfolio management and trading practices; security of client funds and assets; pricing and valuation; the effectiveness of compliance programs and controls; and supervision of representatives’ business activities outside. ” —

What do you think of the SEC statements?

ai – Implementing priority structure into a behavior tree, to react to player actions

My goal is to have a behavior tree that can run alone (autonomously) but also react to input from the player.

I’m making an AI for a hack and slash game where the AI will fight you, chase you, etc. and play defensive based on certain stats (health etc), but I want to add an additional layer; events from player. Say the player attacks, I want a random chance maybe 5-10% to trigger a dodge or step-back from the AI.

Currently I have its own selector running, but that is not sufficient, as it just has same priority or triggers on the same level as the other selectors / sequences in the tree. So how do I go about implementing a priority into the tree?

I want to have dodge, which should be labelled as maybe priority 1 if the event triggers, else it should just go about its usual business.

mobile application – Determining Information Priority using digital Survey

I would like to understand users information priority when it comes to planing trips, browsing and booking events/activities using mobile applications in general.

I’m currently limited to researching by conducting a (single page) digital survey (instead of in person interviews which I’d prefer).

Any tip on how to approach this or links to similar research are welcome. What’s your opinion about this type of questions:

“You are performing a task of planning your trip 2 weeks ahead/ looking for events to attend in your free time tomorrow.”

List of all Offers
List of all Vendors
Offer Categories (Music & Culture, Sport& Outdoor Activities, Shopping, Mobility)

Ticket Price
Date & Time
Location
Event Description
Vendor Contact
How many people have booked so far (how many still can)
Corona related information

“You have chosen an Event you want to book. Rank how important finding this information is to you:”
Payment options
Whether I have to sign up to pay
Can I return a ticket
Can I pay in cash on the spot
Can I save event to mobile phone calendar
Can I share on social media that I’ll be attending

linux – nftables chain with priority -300 (raw) still sees fragments; why?

According to nftables wiki (and also see this answer here), packet defragmentation happens at priority -400. However, when I put in a chain with nftables with priority level -300:

table ip test {
    chain prerouting {
         type filter hook prerouting priority -300; policy accept;
         ip frag-off & 0x1ff != 0 log;
    }
}

I clearly see fragmented packets in the kernel logs:

( 2526.162244) IN=ens7 OUT= MAC=0c:5c:00:2d:b4:03:0c:80:9a:6a:23:01:08:00 SRC=201.201.201.1 DST=200.200.200.2 LEN=1500 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=63 ID=33977 MF FRAG:185 PROTO=UDP 
( 2526.162752) IN=ens7 OUT= MAC=0c:5c:00:2d:b4:03:0c:80:9a:6a:23:01:08:00 SRC=201.201.201.1 DST=200.200.200.2 LEN=961 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=63 ID=33977 FRAG:370 PROTO=UDP 

The above code is just a minimal reproducible example; in our actual code, this leads to problems such as only the initial UDP fragment undergoing (raw) NAT, etc.

The kernel module nf_conntrack is loaded, along with nf_defrag_ipv4. What am I doing wrong?