I don't know if it is some much 'compensating' as it is a "look at my toy" showing off type of thing which isn't really directed at women. When I drive around metro areas it is pretty clear that the large majority of trucks are "house" trucks - they are never used for truck things. They are washed, waxed with nice shiny black tires.
Don't get me wrong - if you got the dough, by all means drive what you want. But most truck owners could get by with something else just as well.
Don't know why you are down voted. People just assume that you have a place to store a trailer (and truck and motorcycle).
As to your choice of the Ford,as a rural late model (2018) F-150 owner, I'd encourage you to consider something else. A used Tundra V8 or one of the GMC/Chevy's. My mechanic is thumbs down on the Rams longer term.
I've had nothing but stupidity with this F-150 and all I do is personal plowing and a few loads of gravel or dirt each year. Granted, my steep dirt road can be very rough in mud season. But I've now spent about 8K in non-maintenance repairs.
I say this as a past owner of multiple mustangs and rangers - I'm done with Ford.
I’ve done my research pretty thoroughly, I found a 2022 with the 3rd gen 3.5 eco boost, so the cam phasers are fixed. The only thing I have to look out for is the 10R80 10 speed. During the test drive the shifts were smooth and minimal gear hunting so hopefully it’s alright
Regualar US parking spots are 18-20 feet deep (depending angle) and 9 feet wide. A F-150 supercrew w/ standard 6.5 foot bed is 20.25 feet which is about as long an f-150 you can buy. The shortest is about 17.5 feet.
I only scanned to article but did not see mention of the pre-trial condition of the subjects. Were they very new to resistance training? Or had they been doing it on a regular basis for a number of years? Because when you start out, doing just about anything is going to increase muscle mass
As a mostly amateur photographer, it doesn't bother me if people ask that question. While I understand the point that the camera itself may be making some 'editing' type decision on the data first, a) in theory each camera maker has attempted to calibrate the output to some standard, b) public would expect two photos taken at same time with same model camera should look identical. That differs greatly from what often can happen in "post production" editing - you'll never find two that are identical.
> public would expect two photos taken at same time with same model camera should look identical
But this is wrong. My not-too-exotic 9-year-old camera has a bunch of settings which affect the resulting image quite a bit. Without going into "picture styles", or "recipes", or whatever they're called these days, I can alter saturation, contrast, and white balance (I can even tell it to add a fixed alteration to the auto WB and tell it to "keep warm colors"). And all these settings will alter how the in-camera produced JPEG will look, no external editing required at all.
So if two people are sitting in the same spot with the same camera, who's to say they both set them up identically? And if they didn't, which produces the "non-processed" one?
I think the point is that the public doesn't really understand how these things work. Even without going to the lengths described by another commenter (local adjust so that there appears to be a ray of light in that particular spot, remove things, etc), just playing with the curves will make people think "it's processed". And what I described above is precisely what the camera itself does. So why is there a difference if I do it manually after the fact or if I tell the camera to do it for me?
>There’s nothing that happens when you adjust the contrast or white balance in editing software that the camera hasn’t done under the hood. The edited image isn’t “faker” then the original: they are different renditions of the same data.
At the end of the day, I expect a journal that I pay for to be better than arXiv and that means quality control. Few people have the time to self-vet everything they read to the extent that it should be in absence of other eyes
What were the risk adjusted returns? Without knowing that, this is all kind of meaningless. Being high beta in a rising market doesn't equate to anything brilliant.
The free version of Gemini says it could not replace the CEO of JP Morgan Chase but that it would make an excellent Chief Risk Officer or Chief Strategist. That would still save a ton of money!
