No, they aren't. They are required to provide the numbers that the government demands. They're free to precede it with a wall of text that explains why they don't feel that blaming them for people choosing to burn their gasoline, rather than, for example, using it as a beverage, produces CO2 emissions all they want to. That's their choice. What they don't have the right to do is not provide the data.

Maybe you did, but I thought the poster's name was Thomas Jefferson. :-D

Weapons detections systems send automated alerts. The specific form depends on the system. But no system is dialing up unanticipating randos on the phone and going, "Hello, police? I've got an emergency here!"

And unless the system had facial ID, and the police knew the "suspect", what they had to go on was the picture from the security camera, so they were already looking at the supposed "gun" in the picture and still saw fit to act like this.

I was not talking about frame tweening. I was talking about tools to create game assets, as was the article in question.

The job is only dangerous in the big cities.

You have some weird conceptions about big cities. Homicide rates aren't an urban vs. rural thing, they're a north vs. south thing . It's the south that has the high per-capita murder rate. Which is in turn because said areas are the poorest places in the US. The trend holds true even in areas that are relatively culturally homogenous - for example, there's not much of a difference in culture between northwest Texas rural counties and northeast Texas rural counties, but northwest Texas is much wealthier per-capita, and also has a much lower homicide rate.

The TL/DR: crime correlates with despair, and places like the Mississippi Delta are characterized by chronic high unemployment, low wages, and limited access to quality education and resources. This combines with a legacy of racial violence/mistrust and lax firearm laws, and the result is exactly what one would expect.

One could make the argument that, well, okay, it may be the rural south that has a high murder rate per capita, okay, but there's lots of people in big cities, so it's a multiplier. Yes, that's true, but there's also lots of cops in big cities, so it doesn't change their odds of being the one responding to a situation where shots are fired, to the degree that police departments are equally well staffed per-capita.

It's also worth mentioning that the rural crime rate trends in the US are much worse than the urban crime rate trends. I hate to risk derailing this by the meremention of Trump, but he tapped into a very legitimate wellspring of anger; the economic growth in the US over the past several decades has been very uneven, and a lot of people, esp. in rural areas, the rust belt, and the south have felt left behind, with insufficient care from politicians as to their plight. While the ragebait media landscape has tended to try to focus their anger on cities and minorities, as "evil outsiders catered to by elites", US cities are, frankly, doing quite well on average, and have thrived in the US's growing service economy. But people in the rural south, the Mississippi Delta, the rust belt, etc (outside of the "energy belts", like in west Texas, that produce oil, gas, wind power, etc)... their lived experiences of a lack of opportunity and declining communities are very much real. They're just projecting them (wrongly) onto big cities outside of their region.

Bad pay, no college education required, but granted the ability to exert power over others... exactly what sort of person do you think you're going to attract with that sort of job description?

Nobody called anybody. It's a weapons detection system. They're deliberately running it. The article makes it sound like ChatGPT got bored, started watching webcams, and decided to narc on the Doritos Guy. That's not even close to what happened.

From TFS, there's no indication either way of whether they had seen the picture before, and if I had to argue either way from the wording, I'd go with "yes, they had".

Also, when did we switch from calling weapons detections systems "weapons detections systems" to "artificial intelligence systems"? It's still true, but a much less useful choice of wording, and is probably going to make some readers think they were shoving video feeds through ChatGPT or something.

Also, in the picture, it was clearly their cell phone and how they were holding it that triggered the alert, not the Doritos bag.

The fewer hours you work, the more productive you are during the hours you spend. There's a tipping point where it doesn't break even, though, and there's a point where you have so few hours that bulls**t like catching up on all the emails that people send about things you don't really need to know starts to dominate the time spent and productivity falls off a cliff again.

There are three factors that define productivity:

• Toil (T) - The time spent doing random s**t that nobody wants to do, but you have to do, but that probably doesn't contribute much to productivity. This is a constant reduction in productivity at the bottom of the graph.
• Energy level (e) - A curve that declines over time for each day and does not fully recover in subsequent days without days off.
• Error rate (E) - A curve that is inversely proportional to energy level, and becomes exponential at high levels of fatigue.

Raw output in a given time period is proportional to energy level. Useful output is raw output minus the error rate, because erroneous output has to be redone and cancels out its benefit. And the time spent is then reduced by the time spent on toil.

So the equation looks something like f(t) = (t - T) * (e - E). That's why small reductions in bulls**t make a big difference, and the sweet spot for time spent ends up being hard bounded by when the error rate exceeds the useful output, at which point productivity goes negative.

Hope that helps.

Same. But the difference between us is that I recognize that what made it worth spending that time was that it was something I chose to do because I wanted to do it, not because my boss told me to do it.

More to the point, every minute spent doing the things my bosses have ever told me to do was a minute I couldn't spend on those other things that are awesome and that I would gladly work crazy hours for.

So what happens when people's jobs try to take so many hours from them is that a tiny percentage of people for whom that's truly exactly what they want to do might love it, but the rest of the employees burn out and run away screaming, and you end up with not enough workers to get the product done.

And they burn out precisely because those bosses are putting their needs — getting what *they* think is an amazing and awesome project — over the workers' needs — having time to do all the stuff on the side that *the workers* think is amazing and awesome.

Not at all. Rapid progress requires adequate labor. It is less efficient with more people spending fewer hours, but still more efficient than if you burn out all of those people and you end up with only a few people spending a lot of hours and everybody else leaving the project and taking their institutional knowledge with them.

See that's the thing, I *do* work with fellow rock stars. Every single person I work with is a rock star at something. Some of them are also rock stars in their jobs.

I don't want anyone to ever lead me who doesn't acknowledge that their priorities aren't my priorities. Not if it's for more than a few weeks.

I'm not a 9-to-5'er. I just spend 56 hours a week sleeping, 40+ hours a week at work writing software, sixteen hours a week working on random projects, ten hours a week exercising, eight hours a week rehearsing in music ensembles, eight hours a week eating, five hours a week driving, 1 hour a week in church, a couple of hours of time waiting in between those things, various numbers of hours trying to find a girlfriend to spend the rest of my life with, and most of the rest of my time recovering from all of the above. Oh, and laundry once a month or so, performances once a month, lots of hours (bursty) doing planning for the ensemble that I actually run...

Sometimes it feels like I never stop working. But I have much broader interests than the one little thing that I do as my job to pay the bills. And I really feel sorry for people who don't. Because those folks aren't the ones who create the things that are amazing. They're the cogs, not the ones turning the gears.

No, not even then. Options in a startup that has a 2% chance of making it to IPO are worthless, as is your equity stake. Working yourself to death for a lottery ticket is stupidity.

Startup or not, hire enough people to do the job. If you're pushing people to work crazy hours, you're a moron, and your company is all but guaranteed to be in that 98%.

"And your etymology is a fantasy. "

You've confused c.f. with e.g..

Only if you want your delivery to be very expensive. The article kind of didn't bother to mention that only the ZQ-3's first stage is reusable, so it's more like a "Starship-esque Falcon 9", both in terms of reusability, size, payload, diameter, etc..

Seriously, what's the point of using AI to generate details that even bleeding edge hardware can't run at a decent framerate

I don't know what you're talking about. This is as far as I can tell about the process of creating game assets in the first place - not about generating them in realtime. It doesn't have any impact on performance.

I've used AI model generators (mainly image-to-model), and for game-type assets, they're usually good enough, though you still of course want a human to exert control over them. But it's way faster than from-scratch modeling. For say 3d printing, though, you really need to decompose the image into smaller components, process each individually, and merge, because otherwise too much fine detail gets lost into the texture instead of being part of the actual model. Regardless, they've been improving at a good pace. I haven't tried (as I've not had a need) but I think they now have model generators that even rig the models.

IMHO, the most interesting thing they did was with the palette. They were obsessed with getting not just images snapped by the satellite as the sky, but having them actually look good, and even a "smart" mapping algorithm to the in-game palette wasn't good enough for them. So they wrote an algo to simultaneously choose a palette for both the colours in the satellite image and the colours in the game's graphical assets so it would pick colours best for both of them, and then remapped both the satellite image and the game's assets to this new palette. Also, normally satellite images are denoised on the ground, but a partner had gotten a machine learning denoising algo running on the satellite.

One thing they weren't able to deal with was that the game tiles the sky background, which is fine because it's a tileable image, but obviously random pictures of Earth aren't (except the nighttime images, which are all black!). If they had had more time, I imagine they would have set up something like heal selection to merge the edges, but one of the problems was that in order to take images of Earth, the satellite had to be oriented in a way that increased its drag and accelerated its deentry... so ironically, playing DOOM was accelerating the satellite's doom.