What might Apple's motive be?

The killer feature is, of course, AR's latent ability to see people naked. This is very obvious, but, since it's so repressed, gets even more repressed.

Money section:

Film affords new artistic possibilities. You are no longer limited to a static camera showing a fixed set, the way the audience of a theatre would be looking through the “fourth wall” of a room. You have many more options to convey things visually, instead of being limited to strongly articulated stage dialogs as the only driver of the plot.

But many early movies didn’t take advantage of that. They just kept doing what they had always been doing at the theatre and just recorded that. They saw the new medium of film merely as a way of “bottling” existing practice. It’s just a storage medium. They didn’t consider that the new medium was in some ways better than the old one and enabled you to do completely new things.

It was the same with writing in antiquity. Writing was merely for storing speech. They failed to take advantage of the ways in which writing could not only preserve existing cognitive practice but in fact transform it and improve it. Such as working with equations symbolically.

But why would an AI "shot" be limited by the "matching" issues of real film? You could just string together multiple shots, no? using some kind of video Control Net https://stable-diffusion-art.c...

In fact, AI video should in theory disrupt a lot of "film language" -- camera going through walls, infinite zooming, fitting through cracks, whatever else we can think of (thinking of the stuff will take a while...)

At first, film thought of itself as just recordings of theatre.

Listen to this guy's podcast (transcript too) about how writing had to go on a similar trip: at first it was poor-man's speech. Then it developed it's own potentials. https://intellectualmathematic...

When FF was first being developed they called their image library code: libpr0n -- this was in ref to the quick-typing misspelling of "porn" as "pron." (Take me back: https://www-archive.mozilla.or...) This was in ref to the idea that a contributing factor of what drives the web is people's desire for dirty pictures. And that a browser needs to optimize for these most-intensive, highest-load, use-cases.

In the world of the web, it's immediately clear that this still holds, and will continue into AI land. But this fact tends to be unspoken or at least cordoned-off. Much of AI discourse is geared towards business interests. "Threats" and "guardrails" are weird keywords that don't tend to speak their assumptions. Meanwhile, there are massive "communities" of AI porn-enthusiasts. "Business" discourse can focus on biz; and "porn" discourse" can focus on pr0n. But general discourse – policy, theory, history – needs to openly discuss and incorporate pron. And we are not doing this.

So much of culture gets its start from raw sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - all films might well be a sublimation. Much less music, etc. etc.

/. and other tech "communities" have shit on FireFox for the last many years. But I think FF took a big hit by not being allowed to develop Geko for the iPhone. They instead spent a lot of money and time on their own mobile OS. FF has always been technically better than Desktop Sarafi, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't have been superior to Mobile Safari from the start. At the least, it would've brought add-ons to mobile; probably would've pushed the envelope in terms of web-standards support and innovation. Instead, Apple has locked us all into a world where the web sucks on mobile, and universally more limited because of them. A few issues that would've gone away with natural competition:

- Save MP3s from the web; cannot be done on mobile. Instead, you need to use the bullshit Apple iTunes/Music interface on your desktop, etc. This, as much as anything, cleared the path for music "streaming" subscriptions (Spotify, etc.) (to say nothing of Movie streaming subscriptions, Netflix, etc.) This enforced limitation (making it difficult to manage your data -- defective by design) was a key motive for Apple: enforce DRM and other, built-in, roadblocks

- Add-ons: Of course, ad blockers. Ones that work the way we want them to. But also: downloaders, translators, etc. And also [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE ADD-ON HERE] and even [INSERT YOUR MOBILE ADD-ON IDEAS HERE].

- Chrome: Apple would rather "compete" against Google than against Free Software. Google can be "reasoned" with (i.e., sued, or made deals with, or divide monopoly spaces, etc.) Unlike Google, Freely made software doesn't have a bottom-line that can be appealed to or leveraged; we only have "the things we want" and those itches don't go away. In this way, by blocking FF, Apple colluded with Chrome to set up the market conditions we currently have, where competition happens mostly in agreed-on margins.

- Dev: The Apple Tooling for mobile web-dev is frighteningly bad. You need to have virtual machines or to connect your iPhone to your computer via very lame connections (at first this was a "standard" but it was too unstable for FF to stay in the game, so they left). This was part of Apple/Google/FaceBook's move to pry the web out of the hands of "normal" people and to try to make it a plaything of bullshit proprietary IDEs, or of corporate team-workflows with their bullshit tooling, etc. A lot of the massive number of dev "jobs" that were created (just like the DRM-supported "content"-creators who got paid) were born of this. Apple wants to give money to "creatives" but only under a strictly controlled model. Thus, the entire economy was warped, and no one can even imagine an open-web anymore.

The openness of the web took a big hit. We're mired in insidious monopolistic bullshit. A lot of people are making money, yes. But a lot of creative culture, entrepreneurship, and freedom in general was stifled on a massive scale.

I use AI to help me code a lot. Not sure I like it. Very often leads me down dead ends. Or guides me into spending way too much time explaining. Or trying to cobble together incompatible pieces that were spit out at me. Or getting burned by bad information, out-of-date documentation, pseudo-code, etc.

I think a big problem in general is the way the AIs are presented, largely based on a Wikipedia model. The idea of "information" or explainers also infected, for example, Google, where instead of giving search results they try to fake their way through giving ANSWERS.

Same with AI. I feel like it should be seen (and present itself) with more of a "maybe you could try this...?" attitude? Or "some people seem to claim that..." etc. Or "what about maybe...?" Instead of posing as a know-it-all. In a lot of good stuff I read, the writer doesn't present themselves as an authority. And even the best authorities hedge with caveats and seem excited to get you thinking about *how* to approach things, rather than giving an ANSWER.

I think it's a version of mansplaining, mixed with marketing, mixed with hoodwinking. It betrays a set of VALUES (one's I don't hold), and makes the whole thing baldly IDEOLOGICAL. I doubt that this attitude naturally emerges from GPT training, I suspect it's finely-tuned (though maybe largely unconsciously).

It really is detrimental to the interfaces.

My kid (she's 12 now) slowly got into horror and I went along with her. I never cared about it before and thought of it as a narrow niche of "scare." Nothing is further from the truth. It is a wide and diverse genre, with dozens of contradicting sub-classes. To me, after reading and listening to Johanna Isaacson (https://www.commonnotions.org/stepford-daughters) I can no longer stand it when people reduce it to "scary." It makes me think of Stephen Hawking explaining all religion in one or 2 sentences. I feel like these biologists never went to the movies, they just watched a few ads.

I think that people who pray genuinely are digging deep and recognizing their sins, hypocracies, and shortcomings. They are atoning. God likes that because corruption isnâ(TM)t just in the sin, but in the lack of recognition of the sin, the lack of being sorry, of humbly understanding oneself and the nature of the world and existence. God likes atonement. He doesnâ(TM)t answer prayers as payback, he answers prayers because atonement makes the world a better place. âoeAnsweringâ prayers is the Kingdom of Heaven manifested through the suffering of atonement.

"...when you hover over an underlined link in a chat, Bing Chat may show an advertisement first, followed by the legitimate download link..."

WHAT? Is that real? LINKS have ads by M$?

The absolute dystopian future has engulfed our timeline. There is no coming out of this alive.

In the early years (which lasted over a decade) it was always "...and then one day we will aggregate the data and sell targeted ads!" This always sounded suspicious.

I have a client who looked at G Search results for their company - they usually have an ad blocker, but they turned it off. All their competitors were there, buying their company name as an adword. The way the ads look makes it very difficult to tell they are ads. Google's suggested solution is to try to outbid competitors on your own company name.

We spent $1500/month on this. After a year or so, we turned it off. No difference in traffic. All of G's advice, documentation, way of thinking about the web and the Internet, are geared toward the idea of you giving them money, if not right now, then later. This attitude has seeped into the deepest corners of everything they do. Even their explanations of technologies are all tainted.

People, even the people who don't know enough to have an ad blocker, realize that all the G search results are designed to be in the interests of Google only. We all try to eek out our own little bit of value from them, but we know we are in for a a few seconds of pain each time we do a G search, no matter how benign.

When you post to /. do not imply that you have ever watched a stream of any sports event (or any other video or audio or reading material or artwork...) -- slashdot is under constant surveillance for these kinds of leads and /. ownership has ongoing subpoena against it to report and give root access to every account belonging to a piracy suspect! Further, the root access they have to your system is instantaneous such that all your real-time data (location, texts, open-mic phone, etc) is permanently archived to use against you when the laws are changed in the future!

It was supposed to read "gag"

Do not understand you - your link was to a 4 year old article about how FF messed up their add-on signing?