>"Something that looks like real life is unnatural? "

I never said that. In fact, I said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

>"Stop being a Luddite."

Stop being someone that doesn't read and/or comprehend what is written, and then comments about it stupidly.

>"I agree that full control is the ideal, but I also don't really get the appeal of 24 fps film effect."

Honestly, I don't quite "get" it either. It should and objectively does look better at higher rates, but somehow it just ruins the mood. It is psychological, and probably just due to a lifetime of what is expected and many of us are contaminated with it.

They can improve the color, contrast, resolution, size, even add 3D and I love all of it. But as the frame rate is increased, either for real or simulated, it trashes it for me.

I wonder if, in the future, when movies finally do go to 48 or 60 or whatever framerate, if there will be device viewing options to actually CUT the framerate back down to 24 or 30? Seems crazy, but might be popular.

Expensive? I could pile the next 100 years of wing waste in desert wasteland at U-Haul transit costs and no one would even know it’s there. Including for the most part Mother Nature.

Another planet is what it would cost to deliver the same level of risk dumping nuclear waste. Will we still argue nuclear is greener 100 reactors from now, when city smog glows at night, and cancer rates are 1 in 2 as the boiled-frog norm?

It’s not merely ideal to solve ALL of the waste problem first. It’s necessary. We couldn't even keep Shall Not Be Infringed in check. We cannot assume up-front promises means we’ll secure the necessary give-a-shit regarding nuclear waste forever-maintenance. That’s how waste drums end up being found leaking at the bottom of the ocean wrapped in a Go Green banner. After we starve ourselves looking for answers as to why the food chain was suddenly crippled.

Batteries can be made non-toxic and recyclable a hell of a lot faster than nuclear ever will.

You know what they say. Go Green or Glow Green.

Cracks me up thinking about the first thing ten-thousand Bitcoin bought back in the day: two pizzas.

Now hackers are demanding ransomware payments for what wouldn't even buy a whiff of those pies.

As the world burns..

>"To bring back an old meme, "Ok boomer".

I am not old enough to be a "boomer". So you might have to change that to "OK X".

>"For the record the same was said about colour TV."

I was young during the transition to color. But I watched both B&W and color at the time and remember both well. Color did not have any such effect. HOWEVER, it is true, at least back then, that B&W was considerably sharper. But color was worth the decrease in sharpness. And HDTV was waaaay overdue by the time in came on the scene and I loved it. So, no, it is not the same thing.

>"So I don't think the high framerate "soap opera effect" is the issue, I think it's the crappy realtime conversion."

I think it is both. Remember The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was filmed at 48 frames per second (instead of 24). It looked artificial/fake/bad to me, even at the cinema, as well. And it was wildly and widely criticized as a major detraction. So it isn't just the fake smoothing processing that causes issues, there really is an important component to lower frame rates in the traditional feel and suspension of disbelief.

Now, young viewers who are much newer to video can probably get used to anything and not have as much problem with it. But we older people often find higher frame rates to be really horrible.

>"Critics, including some big names in Hollywood, argue that motion smoothing looks unnatural and deviates from the creator's intended vision."

No, it makes things look TOO NATURAL/REAL, like they were shot with a webcam or cell phone. It breaks the cinematic experience and expectation that a lot of us have had our entire lives and we detest that. Others hate that it messes with their "suspension of disbelief mode". And, still, others hate the artifacts it creates.

>"Intelligent FRC takes a more nuanced approach to motion smoothing by letting content creators dictate the level of motion smoothing used in each scene"

I generally don't give a F about what the "content creator" wants. *I* want control over my own equipment and its settings and what I watch, thank you very much. I want to turn off *ALL* motion smoothing. And I want everyone to have that ability AND the ability to turn on FULL motion smoothing, or whatever they want in-between. If you want to add another option for "content creator mode", fine, as long as it is optional and my preferred setting is available and never has to be reselected again.

Sorry, some of us are really passionate about this issue. And I am tired of devices/sites/software/whatever increasingly betraying the user's wants and needs.

Somehow that's still the least terrible thing he ever did. What a dick that Cheney was.

Do you think when G.W. joins him Cheney will shove his hand up Georgie boys ass again and puppet him around for old times sake?

The beauty of this is that they didn't specify much beyond that it had to be local content. There's nothing stopping Netflix from producing a show using local talent about how the local politicians are a bunch of horsefuckers. I'm not even Australian, but I might even be interested in watching an Australian show that shits all over their stupid politicians. Or since I'm an American Incan just wait for the inferior American remake.

I'm more curious to see how other posters react to this and to contrast it with their opinions on tariffs.

If people wanted it wouldn’t they be buying it of their own volition? Maybe you're interested is some uniquely Canadian cultural art, but most Canadians don't seem to care, just like most American consumers don't actually care about buying American products because they'll gladly purchase the cheaply made Chinese version instead when given a free choice.

If I were to tell you that these were mostly H-1B visa holders being cut would you change your tune and be incredibly happy since you're one of the posters here who seems to have a particularly fiery passion against them?

It'll only be stunted for someone who really should have bought a more expensive and powerful laptop. If it's aimed at students who will be using office apps, browsing the web, and using an email client then it will be more than good enough. I bought my mother a MacBook Air (I think it was a second generation model) that she used for almost a decade to do about as much. That only had a dual core Intel CPU that I think was sub-2 GHz and a lot less than 8 GB of RAM.

Of course we pages have grown increasingly bloated over the years, but a few extensions to block ads and unwanted scripts goes a long way. Even Chrome is reasonable with RAM use in those scenarios. Not everyone needs a 16-core CPU and 128 GB of RAM. I don't even need that most of the time, but it's nice to have when it is needed. Most people are t ever going to need that, at least not until web pages become even more bloated with ads and scripts.

Apple practically already sells this product. It's just that it's an iPad with a separate keyboard attachment. There's nothing stopping them from building it as a single hardware unit and running OS X instead of iOS on it. It could cost about the same $600 that the iPad and keyboard attachment cost if bought separately or even less since it's integrated and doesn't need a touchscreen if it's strictly a laptop.

I think there's a bigger issue at play. A sale is a legal contract involving two parties each exchanging something with each other. If one of those parties is non-human that immediately creates a question as to whether it can form a valid contract in the first place.

I'm sure someone has just had the bright idea to chime in about corporations not being people but being able to enter into contracts without considering why it would be horrible if they weren't able to, while also simultaneously failing to consider that unions aren't people either and would be similarly restricted. Good thing we've firmly lodged the pin in that hand grenade before anyone did anything stupid and had it blow up in their face

Laws can certainly be drafted to govern to what extent an AI agent can legally act on behalf of or at the behest of some actual person, but the laws aren't there yet.

First, I think Comet is a stupid, brain-smoothing security risk.

Second, trying to tell me the customer I can't use Perplexity to shop is like saying I can't use Safari or Chrome or whatever. Sure you could put technical roadblocks in place to prevent it, but it's stupid for Amazon to try and enforce this.