user experience fail

>>> The short answer: Metabones’ naming is inconsistent, and your frustration is justified. But there is a coherent underlying structure — it’s just buried under overlapping labels (“T”, “Ultra”, “XL”, “CINE”, “II”, “II+”) that Metabones reuses in different ways.

🧭 The real naming matrix (the part Metabones never explains clearly)

Dimension A: Mechanical housing

• T = current housing

• (older non‑T housings discontinued)

Dimension B: Optical formula

• Ultra = 0.71×

• XL = 0.64×

• Super16 = 0.58×

• Smart Adapter = no optics

Dimension C: Electronics

• Mark I

• Mark II

• Mark II+ (same processor, more memory)

Dimension D: Market segment

• CINE = video‑centric firmware + housing

• Standard = photo/video general use

Dimension E: Mount

EF→MFT, EF→RF, EF→X, EF→BMPCC4K, etc.

Metabones combines all of these into one long name, which is why the naming feels chaotic.

🧨 Why listings look contradictory

Retailers often shorten names incorrectly. For example, B&H lists:

• Metabones Canon EF Lens to RF‑Mount T CINE Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71×

• Metabones T Speed Booster Ultra 0.71× Adapter for Canon EF→RF

Both are “T Ultra” adapters — one is CINE, one is not.

The “T” is not a variant of “Ultra”. It’s just always there.

🧵 TL;DR (the part you actually want)

“T” and “Ultra” are not competing labels. You can have both because:

• T = mechanical generation

• Ultra = optical formula (0.71×)

• XL = different optical formula (0.64×)

• II / II+ = electronics generation

• CINE = firmware/housing variant

So a product named:

EF–MFT mount T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71× II

means:

• EF→MFT

• T‑series housing

• Ultra optical formula (0.71×)

• Mark II electronics

Nothing contradictory — just terrible naming.

mouth of babes

The corruption creep — a nearly flat path that drifts so slowly the reader almost doesn't notice. No dramatic swings, no obvious turning points. Just a gradual, relentless drift toward the dark endpoint.

document it, and they will come

Yokoyama: I also remember that at our first location test, at a game center by Nishiogikubo Station, none of the people I saw playing were using the dual fighter ability!

[shmuplations] Ah. Yeah, I do remember it being like that at first.

Yokoyama: Everyone was just dodging. And we had gone to all the trouble of putting that instruction card up! I thought that would have explained it, you know. (laughs)

i do not love apple

You’re not imagining it — iOS 26 currently has a UI bug where Settings → Search → “Dim Flashing Lights” shows a result, tapping it jumps into Motion, but the toggle is missing. Here’s the correct behavior and how to surface the setting reliably.

The setting does exist in iOS 26, but Apple moved it and the search index wasn’t updated.

Below is a clean step‑by‑step path to reach the real toggle.

The correct location for Dim Flashing Lights in iOS 26

It now lives under Accessibility → Display & Text Size, not Motion.

Here’s the exact sequence:

01

Open Accessibility

The setting was relocated from Motion to Display & Text Size.

Settings → Accessibility

• Scroll down past Physical & Motor

• Look for the Vision section

02

Enter Display & Text Size

Apple moved several visual comfort features here in iOS 26.

Accessibility → Display & Text Size

• This section contains toggles for brightness, contrast, color filters, and visual safety

03

Find “Dim Flashing Lights”

Actual Location

The toggle is inside Display & Text Size, not Motion.

• Scroll near the bottom

• Toggle Dim Flashing Lights on

• Optionally enable Reduce White Point if needed

Why search sends you to Motion

Apple’s internal search index still maps “Dim Flashing Lights” to its old location (Motion → Video Effects). The UI changed, but the search metadata didn’t — so tapping the search result jumps to Motion, where the toggle no longer exists.

What you can expect next

This is a known regression in the iOS 26 betas and early builds. Apple typically fixes search‑index mismatches in a minor update (26.1 or 26.2).

self-indictment

i do not know what could be stronger evidence for the intellectual and usability bankruptcy of the computing field than yaml. 

SERIOUSLY?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49314044

brass ring

Microsoft Teams is not what I would call good software.