Unrelated rant: I am far less inclined to read articles with clearly ai generated images purely on the basis that every spammer with a braincell is leveraging it to shine up their turds. I wonder if this is just a me problem.
PS, not saying this article is bad or something, just that I feel like ai generated images like this only add value if your audience doesn't realize it's ai generated. These ai ignorant people are probably not the target audience for this article.
I might be mistaken, but these Intel based machines might be better for switch emulation, as they share dedicated hw for the particular form of texture decompression they use. One cool potential upside
I used to work for GE Aviation. I avoided working on the 737 Max FMS product whenever possible. The whole thing stunk. Too few engineers forced to rebuild an excellent legacy product from scratch under tight time constraints.
I quit the whole industry. Working for pennies in the woods now ✌️
Haha, okay it's not that old, but wow does it feel dated in terms of theming. I mean, it's about three things: cool cop babes, fast subcompact cars, and cool cop babes driving miniature motorcycles which fit inside of subcompact cars.
I've been watching this old anime from the 90s called "you're under arrest." It's not exactly smart, but the elaborate, indulgent animation suprises me constantly. It's shockingly beautiful at times. It trandsends almost anything I've watched produced recently in terms of detail.
From what I understand, it's money. Back in the bubble economy in Japan, you could throw cash at this kind of thing. Now, it's just so much more cost effective to utilize 3d animation whenever possible.
People point at films like, "The boy and the heron" as some sort of model to follow, as if it's a choice. But, by the producer's admission it's "probably the most expensive anime ever made." 7 years of production by the oldest, most seasoned veterans in the space. How could even substantial studios take on such risk and expense?
I really wish we lived in a world where low tier stuff like "you're under arrest" could afford such high quality animation.
However, there are always new tools being developed. I'm confident that new digital techniques will eventually compensate for high cost if nothing else.
Fun fact, be careful around exposed roots from fallen trees, especially if people are messing around nearby. There can be a lot of tension stored in the roots trying to stand even a long dead stump back up / gravity, and if something gives, you can become trapped under the tree.
I had a friend who's niece, an American, was able to travel to use these. It was a difficult path to research and get these services, as well as expensive, but it definitely helped them a lot.
Man, reading the hacker news comments is grim. A deeply cynical and shallow series of takes on an interesting subject.
Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI's fundamental unreliability, but rather it's existence as an affordable service.
Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai's chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.
To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they're just serving me AI content.
I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.
The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.
Pregnant dinosaurs 🙏😊🌸
Sometimes I have a hard time telling when ADHD memes are sincere expressions of a shared experience or people putting thier friends on blast.
Not really, it's just that the sheer quantity of hours has been find to be less important than the original study presented. Essentially, with good aptitude and quality practice, you don't actually need 10,000 hours to reach the top percentile.
The author of this article seems to have taken this in some weird directions. They have had personal experiences of being pressured to practice long hours at something they struggled in. They find relief in the new study, which they allegedly believe validates the idea that it was a hopeless endeavor. I'd argue that the fault didn't lie with the 10,000 hour number, but rather with thier family who pushed the author too hard to succeed in a sport they probably weren't improving at, Rather than reevaluating motivating factors or approach.
Of course 10,000 hours is arbitrary. I'm just saying, the study doesn't assert that inherit talent even exist, let alone is the primary factor. It only contradicts the number of hours.