lancesells

My guess is you can trace a lot of those publications to a handful of conglomerates that are there for ROI and nothing else.

It's also directed by one of the best directors in history.

> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.

I'm wondering that as well but I also wonder if it's a bit like CGI where it's somewhat hit a limit on realness. I'm not saying CGI doesn't get better but is a 2024 Gollum that much more realistic than 2004 Gollum? Maybe I'm wrong but I wonder if that plastic feel to AI lessens but still sticks around.

It's funny how humans and companies have mined natural resources for theoretical progress, but we've come to a point that natural resources are being used to mine a fake resource that really serves zero purpose. What an absurd direction technology has gone.

Have you seen Youtube or Reddit comments on anything? They don't reflect real-life. Youtube is probably the worst, most trollish comments of the "normal" internet and Reddit is a sort of progressive propaganda machine that will also call for the death penalty on a teenager that did something stupid (which lots of teenagers do) or a karen that was an asshole in a restaurant and isn't happy with her life.

I haven't visited twitter in ten years or more so can't comment on that.

I don't have an answer to this, but why if the algorithm can manipulate people, regardless of who directed it, why are we ok with the algorithmic content of all the platforms? I'm not much of a social media user but a lot of the argument here is the algorithm can feed propoganda that people will succumb to.

Why is it ok then for Youtube to feed violence and awful behavior to people (probably to lots of kids) in the US if it's able to influence people? Is the thought that Meta and Google (both without ethics or morals) are just trying to get us to buy shit we don't need, but Tiktok is trying to get us to agree (or not agree) with their stance on x?

I would imagine 95% of cookies are not selling data but giving your data away in exchange for the other services.

1. Because they are using GA4 feeding info to Google.

2. Because they have some advertising pixel / api set up feeding info to Meta.

I would guess sites like Hubspot, Salesforce, or Github might actually be selling data.

Net worth $1.6B. So eating a $6M banana is a PR stunt.

Edit: Also doesn't mean it can't be resold as that banana gets replaced x number of days.

I honestly like my photos more from my iPhone 3 than my current iPhone SE. The photos were blurry, noisy, and crunchy while my current photos are just flat and without character. It's not nostalgia for me, it's the photos looking too good and a bit plastic.

This is brilliant

It's more about people with a lot of money hoping to sell it for a greater return, while maybe also having shit taste in art. In five years it'll be at an auction and sell to some other person with too much money in hopes of making a profit on it later on.

> Imagine creating a game by describing scenes, like the ones in the article, with a good morphing technology between scenes, so that the transitions between them are like auto-generated scenes which are just as playable.

Why do you think this game would be good? I'm not a game maker but the visual layer is not the reason people like or enjoy a game (ex: nintendo). There are teams of professionals making games today that range from awful to great. I get that there are indie games made by a single person that will benefit from generated graphics, but asset creation seems to be a really small part of it.

I have no idea but look at it from the perspective of the US Department of Defense. Also, companies like Google make ~$8B in profit every three months for selling ads. Is it really that crazy they awarded this amount of money to try and have US-made chips?

I'm not advocating for war, weapons, defense budgets, etc., but this doesn't seem like a bad thing if it's providing jobs and chip alternatives for the US and the world. It seems like Taiwan is going to cease being independent at some point.

Chips are the new oil. They run everything and without them you would be outdroned in the case of a war.

Not entirely. I would buy one if there was one I liked that was in the price range I want to spend. It would be practical as in I don't want to pay $25k more than an ICE car for the same quality of vehicle. Neither cultural or political in my case.

They bought that though.

It seems a bit cultural, a bit practical, and maybe a bit political? Tesla is an American company and seems like it was selling cars. There's no one stopping them so I'm not sure the oil industry is entirely to blame.

People who pay for a working game to play probably care. I'm not a gamer but I occassionally will try to pop something in every six months or so. Two hours later after I have to sign in from a controller, update the OS, then update the game I'm over it. I can't say that's all from shitty software development but some of it probably is.

I don't know anything about this comic, but word balloons going over part of a face is not a good sign for a quality book.

We probably live in different places because I haven't found people to be all that rude where I've lived (cities), but America is huge and has hundreds of different cultures so I'm sure there are some where rudeness is more prevalent.

Coddled wouldn't make you rude. Being exposed to too much internet would make you rude. If you look at the default sidebar in Youtube it's a shitshow.

Lego seems like plastic model kits for adults more than the building and creating it was originally. I wonder what the kids to adults breakdown is for Lego.

Unfortunately I've purchased movies from iTunes over the last ~15 years.

Apple TV kind of has ads in the form of their streaming service. Not egregious yet, but it gets worse with every iteration.

I was thinking about this the other day. Like how all of these different types of things splintered off and evolved in different ways. Trees are these creatures that grow their limbs into the earth and the sky rendering them immobile but they have the same ancestor as us.

> If anything you ever say during routine business operations can end up as evidence, clear and honest communication will suffer. The effectiveness of organizations, including the ability to act ethically, will be seriously degraded.

> There needs to be some kind of work product doctrine, which protects the privacy of routine business communication.

Wow. This is the opposite of how I feel. Mega-corporations should have their communications logged at a much higher level than a normal business. The things that have come out in court show how they manipulated their customers (advertisers). Regardless of how you feel about advertising a portion of those companies are small mom and pop shops trying to get by. If you have communications that can be used as evidence you're probably in the wrong.

Microsoft was bummed that they couldn't acquire it so they recreated it in 3D.

First they came for my gas stoves and now my raw milk. Let's destroy the FDA and food safety that keeps people alive because pasteurization is the devil.

Counterpoint: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-dangers-of-raw-milk-w...

Yeah I never understand all these systems being connected at all. I understand remote working and monitoring, but is that worth it for something that is the most crucial part of society?