kyleplum

> Is this actually true?

I mean Google obviously thinks it is otherwise they wouldn't be paying Apple $20 billion a year.

I wish someone would make a social media version of the North American house hippo commercial that ran in the late 90's.

That situation just requires a longer hose

It seems dishonest to leave out Windows 11 when talking about how MS is for announcing in advance what support will be. They did not give anywhere near proper notice about the TPM/UEFI/Secureboot requirement ahead of time.

Isn't that what happened to SVB?

This is actually a more apt analogy than I think you intended.

We do have planes that can fly similarly to birds, however unlike birds, those planes do not fly on their own accord. Even when considering auto-pilot, a human has to initiate the process. Seems to me that AI is not all that different.

> I'd also argue that being sold at a big box store is not really indicative of much in the 21st century.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend spending some time reading about what it takes to get a product on the shelf at Wal-Mart/Target/Costco. When a companies reputation relies on what it is selling, the bar becomes a lot higher.

IMO the only thing that separates this from racketeering is that it's technically legal.

> Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here. From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented.

Are these filings typically full of quips? This seems pretty damning but I don't read enough court filings to know whether this sort of language is typical

You could replace "money" with any specific area of human expertise. I don't need to fully understand how my body works because my doctor does. I don't need to fully understand how my car works because my mechanic does. I don't need to know how to build my home because my contractors know.

The information is available to those who are interested or want to further that area of human expertise, but the collective knowledge of humanity is too great for all of us to know everything. That's why we pay (mostly) regulated experts to handle these things for us.

I am convinced that him not believing in it, getting paid a boatload to do a commercial stating he doesn't believe in it, then it failing is definitely the plot for a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode.

> Our third quarter revenues were $69.1 billion, up 6% versus last year or up 11% on a constant currency basis

"Constant Currency Basis" seems to be the latest innovation in the non-GAAP methods of reporting revenue. The creativity of the financial industry never ceases to impress.

Thankfully we do have a set of "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" that helps see through the bull.

As I mentioned in another comment - there is such an effort underway https://contentauthenticity.org/

They don't intend to dictate who can authorize media, only provide a verification mechanism that the media was sourced from the place it claims to have been sourced from and is unaltered.

I think of it as https but for media content.

It's not as far away as one might think.

There was a demo earlier this year (Jan) showcasing the proposed 1.0 spec working in Microsoft Edge: https://c2pa.org/jan-2022_event/

There are ongoing efforts to enable digital signatures of online media. The idea is that you (or your browser) can validate that an image or video is unmodified from the source that produced it.

https://contentauthenticity.org/

When someone uses Photoshop to create artwork, nobody believes that the Photoshop algorithm has any claim to be the author of that artwork. I don't see how the code behind e.g. an AI image generator is fundamentally different than the Photoshop algorithm from a "who created the produced work" perspective. Similar to Photoshop, the AI art generator is still just running code at the behest of some human.

The more interesting question I think is whether any of the creators of the training data used by the AI have any claim over the generated artwork.

Without taking a concrete stance on the current state of patents - I developed something similar using GPU compute shaders while employed at AMD/ATI

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ef/d2/2c/b54bbdf...

Shameless self promotion aside, I think the patent application includes some helpful diagrams to understand what is being done here - specifically page 25/26.

On a global level? No.

On a local level? Maybe? But consider that the US workers of the most valuable car company in the world (by a factor of about 3)are not part of the UAW, so it's debatable at best.

One is big enough to influence the global market price for it's product, the other is small and localized and has effectively no influence on the going market rate for it's product.

I'm not convinced that a single labor union has the power to influence the labor market outside of the specific company the union represents. This is not the case for OPEC who has sufficient power to manipulate the market.

> isn't that union-busting and/or illegal?

It's supposed to be, but it's often the case that corporations are not penalized to a sufficient amount (or at all) to deter this. We've seen many cases where it's cheaper for the corporation to pay these fines and continue doing what they are doing - in that sense the current laws are ineffective.

No because the company has other options for labor - it can fire it's entire workforce and rehire, or relocate. The same can't be said for cartels which have complete control over their respective markets.

Consumers do care about things like battery life. I imagine most consumers would prefer to stick with what they know (windows), but as the battery life/performance gap grows, people will be more likely to make the switch.

As far as I can tell, the ARM hardware linked is vastly inferior to the current M1 hardware, let alone M2.

> But this is a multi-year journey which is likely to give Intel/AMD time to produce something more competitive.

And during this time Apple is going to release M2 Pro/Max, M3, etc. I just have a hard time seeing how Intel/AMD catchup in the laptop space.

I have faith in MS software development - I believe they can get windows on ARM working - but as far as I can tell, all non-Apple ARM hardware implementations are significantly lacking in the laptop space. There are vendors making decent phone chips, but I've seen no indication of the ability to scale up to a laptop in the way Apple Silicon has.

I can't help but wonder what Microsoft's answer to Apple Silicon will be going forward. They don't really make hardware, but selling Windows laptops gets harder and harder the further Apple gets ahead. It seems inevitable that there needs to be some ARM-based Windows laptops to compete in perf/watt to the M1/M2 but I don't know what company can provide an ARM chip that competes with Apple at this point.

Can you elaborate on the workflow you use where this is a incompetence-defining issue? I'm trying to understand but it just doesn't seem like a reasonable workflow - the only thing I can come up with is that you use the current timeline preview point as your desired edit location and then move a clip back and forth until you find the frame you want to cut? Wouldn't it be easier to scrub through the clip to the point in the video you want to edit and then use the mark in/out points or just cut the video?

I know everyone has their own editing style, but calling the editor incompetent because of this weird workflow issue seems a bit much to me.

There are always going to be some subjective decisions in the lossy encoding process. Determining which bits to drop via encoder configurations/customization is far from an exact science. These decisions themselves can act as a watermark.

There is a discussion to be had around watermarks surviving transcoding but I was mostly trying to understand whether the opinion

> It is modifying what the artist intended you to hear in a destructive way. It is destroying the original performances.

also applies to lossy encoding.

Are you against all lossy compression methods as well? The watermark can simply be a slight tweak of the compression algorithm that could as well have been done for non-watermarking reasons.

He did mention changing the monetization scheme used by twitter from being ad-based to being subscription based. I've heard this idea floated around for awhile and my favourite version is something along the lines of requiring a monthly payment once you reach a specific size of followers/audience. The idea being that today, twitter is being used by corporations/individuals as essentially free marketing.

Although not guaranteed to solve the issue of "free speech", I would be interested to see the results of a social media service that is not designed to maximize engagement to drive the most ad dollars.