tumult

68% is horrible

I am a resident of Japan. This is extremely bad advice. Do not follow this advice.

To csomar: you are willingly spreading harmful advice. Stop it. Stop making people reply to clean up your mess.

I see this is your first rodeo.

VLC doesn't have perfect compatibility. I think it worked correctly on random video files less frequently than mpv the last time I tried it. And mpv can actually step forward and back frame by frame.

There are a bunch of contributors to these projects. I wrote the C version of Orca (and helped design the second version of its evaluation strategy) but also had help and ideas from other contributors as well. I wrote the Windows version of Uxn, Uxn32, which was a from-scratch implementation, except for a couple of things like the palette mixing table. The code from Uxn32's VM core ended up in other versions of Uxn emulators, which were then modified and improved by the people running those projects. There is not any governing body, committees, or authoritative leadership for these projects. We just talk to each other through various channels and do stuff. It's a collective.

It is equivalent to all zeroes with the numeric precision used.

Fair enough. Sorry.

Another way of writing it out:

How likely is it that you'd get these votes distributions

    51.2000000%
    44.2000000%
    04.6000000%

exactly? With all of those clean 0s? Very low.

But it's also possible that there was sloppy reporting and the vote counts were re-processed at some point in the chain and rounded to one decimal place.

That’s not what this article is about. Read the article.

This affected people who never even used Facebook. It would tag and track your presence in photos even if you had no Facebook account.

Article: "The homeless residents said those penalties violated the Eighth Amendment of the US constitution because the city did not have any public shelters."

“in exchange for time served”

This is a bad idea, because it would incentivize channeling even more people into the prison system in order to have test subjects.

Instead of more cures for diseases, we would get an equilibrium-finding economy of live human bodies, where most of the net gain is diverted to middlemen and administrative overhead. And don't forget the incomprehensible horror.

Housing isn't something you buy off of a shelf if it's worth the price. Living somewhere is a requirement. You must pay.

The spiral rule is not real and fails on even basic examples like

    char * foo[10][5];

The OP article shows you how to actually read the declarations, not a fake trick that will lead you astray.

What is your standard for affordable? My apartment in Japan is very cheap and in an urban area.

Housing is already affordable in Japan.

Well, yeah? What are the users going to do about it? Complain forever even though it's not going to do anything?

By the way, I still see it mentioned occasionally, both in YouTube videos themselves (often when someone is talking about YouTube) and amongst my friends. Both as a general complaint about the usability of the site being worse ("I had to wait 90 seconds to realize this video was a waste of time because downvotes are gone") and as an example of a service being able to do whatever it wants without regards to whether users like it or not.

My comment was a reply to someone talking about being expressive with AI music generators like these. The points you are making have nothing to do with what me or the person I was replying to said.

> To criticise AI music for being the same as human music, is a curious thing to say if one doesn't want to distinguish the two somehow? I missed that point entirely I guess. I don't know why that sentence was there at all then.

This is still not relevant. You don’t need to bring it up again. I wasn’t criticizing it for that.

As for the rest of your comment, you didn’t state any upsides for AI generated music, but you did spend time to attack me, so I think we’re done here.

I know. I was saying it’s not expressive. I didn’t say that everyone has people to make music for them.

> "Music derived from existing music" describes almost all music ever written. So not any kind of argument against AI?

I don't know why you are calling out this particular sentence fragment. That wasn't meant to differentiate AI-generated music from human created music.

> My conclusion? Get used to it.

What's the upside? I don't get it. I don't understand why you even replied to me. You didn't address the point I was making. The point was the examples I gave — photography, audio recordings, film — which are much closer to AI music than your examples of punch cards and looms — had clear upsides to humanity, despite also having some downsides. AI music and visual art seems to be almost entirely downside. Sorry to restate what I already wrote, but you didn't address it at all.

It will let you express yourself in precisely the same amount as giving those instructions to a person to create a song for you. Very little.

Humanity lost some things when it gained recorded music. It made the profession of performer less valuable, and diminished the number of performers who could make a living. But humanity got something very valuable in return — the ability to record and play back music. The same goes with the tradeoffs made for photography and motion pictures.

I see little value to humanity in tools that are able to generate an endless amount of music derived from existing music, specifically designed to neatly slot into the place of human artists. We gain little in return from that.

Some people will make an argument like, this lets people generate lots of low-quality music for use in elevators or grocery stores. Well, there is already a massive oversupply of completely free music which can do that. Do people pretend to not know this?

The other weak argument is that it lets people express themselves who haven't studied or practiced music. But, it doesn't, because the interfaces (text prompts or "upload an existing file") are designed to take the place of a human being given instructions for criteria to fill, as if they were a worker, not an expression of the person giving the instructions. If the person giving the instructions were expressing themselves, most of the AI tool would not be redundant. It's as expressive as telling another person to write a song for you with some instructions. Hardly expressive at all.

I've seen stories like this many times, sometimes accompanied by comments from police warning parents not to abandon their children. The problem is so bad that there's a whole movement dedicated to trying to stop or reverse this trend that is making (or has already made) it culturally unacceptable to let kids go anywhere or do anything https://www.freerangekids.com/

Could be, yeah.

Yeah, this does seem AI generated, or at least “AI assisted” in that it was primarily written by AI and a human slightly modified it and then stamped their name on it.

Just look at this paragraph:

“Many laptops sit on a charger throughout the workday and all through the night. We don’t even think about it; we just plug in everywhere. We’re charging at work, at home, at the coffee shop – a collective addiction to a laptop at 100% battery. There’s nothing more frustrating than a laptop that can’t hold a charge, but your charging addiction may be accelerating the issue.”

It’s entirely air. It says nothing. The transition to the “There’s nothing more frustrating than a laptop that can’t hold a charge” sentence also doesn’t make sense. It’s like an 11th grader padding their essay to 1000 words, except the entire article is like that.

This is obviously not true if you look at the current state and history of many countries in the world.

No, it was never there. Some people assumed it was, said it out loud, and it spread like a meme (as in the original meaning of the word.)

Apparently, the developers of Dissent have never read Discord's Terms of Service, because it doesn't even mention third-party clients.