Comment Re:the fonts are too small. (Score 1) 147
> MacOS Sonoma 14.4.1.
Running Ventura 13.3.1 here. Perhaps that's it.
Thanks. I'll consider upgrading after I surf the "bugs in Sonoma" stuff.
> MacOS Sonoma 14.4.1.
Running Ventura 13.3.1 here. Perhaps that's it.
Thanks. I'll consider upgrading after I surf the "bugs in Sonoma" stuff.
Non-dispatchable energy sources cannot function as base load.
> There's also the Text Size slider under the Accessibility control panel.
There is no text size slider under accessibility on my machine (4k monitor, M1 Studio Ultra.)
What works, sort of, is to select the desktop then right click (or control left click), select "Show View Options" from the context menu, and then in there, select a text size from the drop down. You can also do this in the context of any finder window.
However, maximum selectable text size is 16pts — which is very small on a 4k display. As an "accessibility" setting, it's laughable. Which is perhaps why it's not under accessibility.
I have been using a free app from the Mac app store, "Loupe", which provides a comprehensive zoom capability much more convenient than Apple's "Zoom." It's not as good as actual reasonable control over system fonts would be, but it's better than being stuck with 16pt fonts.
Sin taxes rarely do anything to discourage consumption, the most common outcome is the poor get poorer.
That's not true, they absolutely do work to discourage consumption.
Tobacco taxation, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, has been recognized as one of the most effective population-based strategies for decreasing smoking and its adverse health consequences [1â"4]. On average, a price increase of 10% on a pack of cigarettes would reduce demand for cigarettes by about 4% for the general adult population in high income countries [4].
The economic literature has made unique and important contributions to our understanding of the effectiveness of tobacco taxation on ameliorating the health consequences of smoking. Increased tobacco taxes, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, provide an economic disincentive to those who smoke or may be contemplating smoking. Indeed, the evidence from this knowledge synthesis strongly supports increasing cigarette prices through tobacco taxation as a powerful strategy for achieving major reductions in smoking behavior among some, but not all, high-risk populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
Really to claim that increasing prices don't lead to lower consumption would overturn the whole concept of supply & demand, or at the very least assert that the demand is perfectly inelastic.
If you're really concerned about economic inequality, you can redistribute those taxes to the poorest population.
Have some bad news about that too:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsb...
Make sure not to specify what the serious maintenance issue was that you could detect from your middle seat. That's how the FAA will get your ass!
Boeing chose to accept that engine and cowl design. It's not ONLY Southwest maintenance.
You'd need to show that there was a design/engineering flaw with it that Boeing was aware of and chose to ignore for it to become their issue.
> the stuff available today is nothing more than amusing crap generators
The public stuff.
I got a demo of an application that all the companies employees are using. Everything they work on it is being fed into it and they have multiple LLMs working through it.
In the demo they gave it a real world use case and it proceeded to build marketing, architectural (with diagrams) and pricing documents.
All from materials that highly paid people doing the work up front.
The only flaw I could see in it is that you need experts to know that the materials are meaningful, but it was doing the majority of their work.
Is it online somewhere?
I have not shared it with the world, which I think is what you're asking. Nor do I plan to, at least anytime in the near future. This reduces the attack surface and the support loading.
Otherwise, yes, it's online — it's a networking WAN application bringing together people from widely disparate locations.
The real question is where will everyone go now that Discord is enshittified?
After putting up with Slack... slacking... for a while, Ryver ignoring bugs and getting worse over time, I wrote my own system from scratch. No ads, no randos, no spam, no cost. I am running independent family and business instances.
It's got a decent set of features, including a broad range of text formatting (it does _x_ and *x* and emoji
Sometimes, if you can, you just have to say "nope" and put your nose to the grindstone a bit.
I wish I were rich and had a huge cock. I got over it. I didn't get upset at every display of ludicrous wealth and every guy with a bulge in his pants running down his leg.
Well, uh, you're clearly... sane.
There are lots of non-pretty people who dislike that more-pretty people can make an easy living by marrying wealthy partners.
There are lots of non-athletic people who dislike that more-athletic people can make an easy and wealthy living playing sports. Should we then ban the use of photos of athlete's faces?
There are lots of people who can't act and/or aren't good-looking that dislike that actors can make an easy and wealthy living playing roles. Should we then ban the use of photos of actor's faces? Should I go on? Models? Politicians? Firemen? Cats ?
Who will protect our feline friends from the outrageous exploitation of the fact that they are cuter than almost any human who ever lived?
I mean, honey, you may be cute, but cats have you beaten like a grievously dusty rug in that department.
The entire trend of "oh no, can't see / say / look at / admire / leverage" [a photo of a face] is absurd, and would actually be funny if it wasn't so outrageously wrongheaded.
Imagine a big lab where male researchers put playboy pictures on the wall.
That's not even a remotely reasonable take or example for what's happening here. This is a woman's face . It's a "Playboy picture" only in the sense that yes, it appeared in Playboy. It's not a nude. Pictures of, just for instance, Peter Sellers and Steve Martin have also appeared in Playboy. Should we now ban crops of these gentlemen's faces from those photos from appearing in an image processing example? I mean, seriously. It's puerile. Stupid. Regressive. Ridiculous.
Do you think that is professional ?
If a person's face, even, OMG, a handsome man or beautiful woman or other, should be used for an image processing example? Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Is it professional? Yes. Absolutely. 100%. I'm not in the least offended by the idea, nor should I be. It's a picture of a face. As for beauty, again, not offended regardless: male, female, trans, androgynous.
Do you think female researchers would feel comfortable working there ?
With pictures of people's faces on the wall? Even, OMG, women's faces? Well, if they don't, they need some therapy. What they don't need is for the walls to be sanitized so they can pretend that good-looking people don't exist, aren't interesting to others, and are somehow offensive in and of themselves.
What about people who fear cats? Should we then ban all pictures of cat's faces from lab walls and studies? How far do you want to take this? What about agoraphobics? Would you have us ban pictures of the outdoors from lab walls and studies? What about amathophobics? Should all labs have privacy walls so no one sees powders on the bench? What about, OMG, a picture of a pile of powder on the wall? JFC, call the Powder Police immediately.
Look, if you — or whomever — don't want to appear in Playboy or some other publication, I'm 100% behind you. Don't. Don't sign a contract that gives them rights to any photos. As for what other consenting adults have chosen to do, just fuck off, please. The only one in need of your take is you. As soon as you start telling me what I can do with a picture of someone's face, presuming copyright issues are squared away, I'm going tell you to fuck right off.
And what is triggering you ? Are you afraid they're going to come for your porn ?
Quite aside from the neurotic absurdity of the anti-adult-porn movement, no, this is something else entirely. This is moving normal things into the realm of moral panics. It's a bad thing. Entirely. On its own.
Trump and his american taliban allies are the ones you should be afraid of.
I am about as anti-regressive and anti-Trump as you can get. Lefter-than-left in almost all social and economic aspects, conservative only where it seems to me to be logical to conserve already-achieved progress. An outlook that includes conserving the achievements of separating personal liberties from absurd moralizations insofar as we have managed that thus far.
The problem here, what makes it worthy of comment, is that this particular moral panic in-a-teacup is straight-up regressive.
The thing is there is a moral panic
A perfect storm of toxic feminism and neurosis.
The copyright holder is okay with it, and they own the rights to the image. The researchers using it are okay with it. The only "offensive" thing [cough] about this image is that she is beautiful, and that is what is actually triggering these people.
There's no problem with control if you don't give it too much power.
The not-very-subtle issue is that regardless of the limits put on hardware, the people using the hardware may not be subject to effective limits. Which is how we got Putin, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, McCarthy, McConnell, Stalin, Mao, etc.
People have a disturbing habit of taking up crazy and harmful ideas regardless of the source. All an AI really has to do is source the ideas. There will be people who will be delighted to take it from there.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
