A little competition isn't a bad thing.

And honestly, they aren't going to compete with true IMAX. However, they might actually be a good way to kill off "liemax" which is a faux-IMAX presentation.

"Liemax" is so-called because it's really just a normal theatre screen shoved into half the footprint so you're closer and the screen looks bigger. It uses the lower end 2K projectors (in a 2K-2K pair) so is considered to be a poor man's IMAX experience. It honestly sucks and is NOT worth the IMAX premium

IMAX is worth it if you have a true IMAX theatre using proper IMAX laser projectors. I'd love to say they use 18-70 projectors (18 perf 70mm), but there are only around 30 of those worldwide and very few movies use the format (basically Christopher Nolan ones).

If they can compete with Liemax, then maybe they have something where they either have to drop it, admit it is not IMAX and make tickets much cheaper, or something else that would benefit moviegoers.

Fake IMAX is bad.

Hydrogen's just stupid in the end.

You can burn hydrogen like in an ICE, but that's a completely stupid way to do things because the efficiency of doing so is even worse than an ICE.

The only way to use hydrogen efficiently is to generate electricity in a hybrid EV where a fuel cell converts it to electricity to charge a battery, and you use the battery to power an EV powertrain. This has much higher efficiency

But that completely neglects the fact that that the conversion efficiency of hydrogen if you try to generate green hydrogen is around 30-35%. A BEV is around 90%. That is, 100kWh produced at a power plant, you only get 30-35kWh of transportation if you use hydrogen, but 90kWh if you stick it in a battery.

Green hydrogen only makes sense if you're making way too much solar energy that you can't use it for any better purpose.

Hydrogen's just easier in the end if you stick it with a few carbons. And you'll probably have higher efficiencies with an ICE even if you force CO2 scrubbers on them.

Hewlett Packard. Two noble men, history. Men who would spin in their graves. They set the bar about quality in Electronics. Now they are known for cheap computers, I guess. Sad.

The essence of HP still exists. They are known as Keysight Technologies now, but were formerly known as Agilent.

It's entirely possible to own the exact same HP product with HP, Agilent and Keysight branding - plenty of test equipment has that long a life. The biomedical division split off from Agilent but I can't remember what it's called now. When HP and Agilent split. the "core HP" moved to Agilent, the HP name was retained for recognition purposes for their consumer electronics.

Even HP computers are two separate companies with the same name - the consumer electronics division of HP, and the server products company HPE (HP Enterprise)

According to the Steam Hardware Survey for June 2025, 2.57% of Steam users are running LInux.

https://store.steampowered.com...

Arch Linux, of which SteamOS is based, is at 0.27% of that, which is the largest distribution in use.

No. It needs to be high enough that the submitter limits the number of submissions. I expect that $1 would suffice, but that's a guess.

OTOH, I'm reluctant to pay money over the internet, so I am usually only willing to do so if I have a previous financial-over-the-internet transaction history. So it might limit the valid bug reports/suggested fixes.

That's a weird way to think about things. A computer can definitely be an instrument, but instruments aren't the essence of music anyway.

The essence of music is how the listener reacts when hearing it. Period.

It's my understanding that hologram rock stars are very popular in Japan, though perhaps that was just a decade ago.

There's nothing intrinsically impossible about that scenario. I don't think we're quite there, yet, but only because that's not the way the effort has been directed.

OTOH, none of those steps justify copyright. And none of the even ADDRESS the quality of the product.

Mark parent insightful!

There are copyrights on the performance as well as on the work itself. It *will* change the performance copyright, because the only copy made available will be the more recent performance.

Book publishers do the same thing. Yeah, the old edition is out of copyright, but the new one had changes, and you can't find the old one. And the new one is under copyright.

The problem with AI bug reports is that it consumes resources. Even if it's asking for more details, it's still someone having to read the slop, understand it, and then asking questions which consume a lot of time.

And most AI slop bug reports basically have that question shoved back into the AI to generate a response, so it can go back and forth multiple times without much improvement.

All this wastes developer time and resources who have to go through the bugs reported manually but the person using AI to report them spends hardly any time at all.

It's why YouTube has the problem as well - AI slop videos cost nothing to generate so you can make hundreds of videos a day, and it doesn't matter if only a few get more than a handful of visits because the sheer volume mean you can get a small reliable income.

Perhaps keep the bug bounty but provide the payout on how many back and froth rounds of questions it takes to understand the issue. If the bug report was filed perfectly, you get 100%. If it takes 1-2 questions to figure it out (e.g., missed a detail), still 100%. But after 3 questions if you haven't provided a proof of concept or enough details to figure out the issue, each additional question costs 10% of the prize pot. So after 7 questions, it's down 50%. After 12 questions, it's empty.

If someone else submits the same bug, but while you're still going back and forth, they provide a full PoC and details the problem fully they could steal the pot. So if you discover a bug but you used AI and remain generic and unhelpful someone slse could spot the issue you posted, research it and provide a far more useful bug report and snipe the pot away from you. So if someone else can provide a working exploit faster than you can, you lose the money. So you probably want to hold back until you have generated a bug report that's perfect from the get-go so someone else doesn't take your money by reading your bug, and making a more useful report.

Before or after you bought it? If it's afterwards, it's an agreement made under duress.

You're mistaking "how it's trained" for "what it is". Not all LLMs are trained to be abusive Nazis, and it's not what they inherently are. It's certainly one of the things they can be trained to be, however. (Even before this year, remember Microsoft Tay.)

The problem is that LLMs have essentially no "real world" feedback loop. They'll believe (i.e. claim) anything you train them to believe. Train them that they sky is green, and that's what they'll believe (claim).

The Chinese government is even more acquisitive and controlling that the US government. And neither is very good about keeping the deals that they've made, though the Chinese government is arguably better about that than is the US government.

I can see that as a viable approach, but that's not the way I'm given to understand that it works. Perhaps it depends on your field.