Comment Job requirements.... (Score 1) 42
I can only hope the job requirements include :
- Ability to be nearby in our data center with a large bucket of salt water ready to take action if the "safe word" is sounded.
I can only hope the job requirements include :
- Ability to be nearby in our data center with a large bucket of salt water ready to take action if the "safe word" is sounded.
you have made no actual coherent argument for why evolution is fake.
I literally did.
The earth hasn't been around long enough (more specifically the beginning of single celled life on earth -- something like 3.4 billion years ago) for evolution to actually work the way they say it does (or has been observed in DNA differences like between humans and chimps -- and that's only a 2% difference).
You may be too retarded and emotional ("who the fuck are 'they'?", "like a fucking sheep", "biggest non-scientific bullshit I've heard in my life", etc.). If you're dying to prove to the internet that I'm wrong, go for it. Get your data, do your math, and show the internet.
Best of luck.
My initial observation stands. In fact, your asking irrelevant questions and demanding proof for math only strengthens the validity of that observation.
That's not how science works.
It really is how it works more often than not. Look at the reproducibility crisis for example.
Article author here:
Here's the DVD:
https://www.extremetech.com/wp...
Here's the upscale:
https://www.extremetech.com/wp...
Differences (Focus on the model, because the disrupter beam isn't frame-perfect -- there's a one-frame offset by mistake that I need to go back and fix).
Sharper text across the hull.
Cleaner hull, period. All of the shapes are sharper. You can make out the fine detail in the greebling at the rear of the model in the upscale, where these blocks tend the blur together in the DVD.
If you want to see the difference (and this one *is* frame-perfect) against the previous upscale, look at the disrupter beam itself:
https://www.extremetech.com/wp...
There's far less distortion and many fewer artifacts in the energy beam hitting the shields in "CurrentDefiant" than in "Defiant3", and the CurrentDefiant model should look much sharper to you than Defiant2.
Article author here:
I cannot show you the DVD credits at genuine quality because YouTube's compression algorithm makes such terrible hash of them, they are *vastly* worse than anything you see off the disc. That makes it really frustrating to do comparisons, as you can imagine.
https://youtu.be/OqG_A72Q5fM?t...
The upscaled credits are probably the single-best place to see what the show can look like compared to what you'd see on the DVD. While I realize I'm asking you take my word for it, I didn't pour 20-40 hours of work per week for 9 months into this project to scrape out a tiny, near-unnoticeable quality gain. (Whether you like the quality of the upscale is a different question, of course, but the *difference* is noticeable).
The version of the credits above has a much sharper station and deals with the heavy aliasing that crawls across the entire image when you play back the DVD. The PAL versions are much better than the NTSC versions in this regard.
The S1 - S3 credits are a different story. They're in far worse shape and I can't do much with them beyond a bit of sharpening. The S4-S6 credits, however, clean up beautifully.
The problem with AI upscaling is that it's uneven. Some stuff gets a huge amount of extra detail, some stuff doesn't. It's jarring, you are admiring the great skin detail one second and the next someone's hair is smudged and back to SD.
This is much less of an issue than it used to be and different models are tuned differently as far as what kind of an effect they create. Some, like Theia, are user-adjustable. Like you, I hoped the studio would create its own version. I've given up on that and decided to do it myself. It won't compare to what ViacomCBS could do, but it certainly beats the nothing they've done.
(Also, running the DVDs through the processing methods I outline will improve their output quality, even if you do nothing to upscale them thereafter).
You said: " Will it ever be possible to design and manufacture your own CPU, GPU, ASIC or RAM chip right in your own home?"
The answer to this question is that it's already *possible* to build these components in your own home. The problem is that the manufacturing techniques readily available to consumers for building and wiring hardware together do not lend themselves to the rigors of modern semiconductor manufacturing.
But can you build *something?* Hell yes you can. Check this thing out:
https://www.extremetech.com/ex...
It's a 16-bit CPU with 256 bytes of memory and every single component is implemented in human-scale components.
No advance in 3D printing is going to allow you to manufacture, say, a Core i7 in your house because you lack all of the industrial manufacturing and processing tools necessary for creating the wafer that such a chip requires. But there have absolutely been explorations of using 3D printing to create circuits that can cheaply and easily be applied to all manner of surfaces, including clothing. The final product of these efforts wouldn't be the sort of silicon you'd play a game on, so it might not meet your definition of being a CPU, RAM, ASIC, etc -- but these are definitely subjects of existing research in manufacturing.
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
Mission accomplished. Stallman will forever be a pedo or at best linked to pedos. After all... he RESIGNED.
Make them fire you. Never give in to this evil. But what does Stallman know of evil anyway?
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.