Truth Social is a refuge for uneducated MAGA where they can't even tell the difference between the truth and an outright lie.

Trump can't even stop himself from shitting his pants, let alone an actual trend in what people look for and want to use.

Trump wants to be Putins gay lover from how Trump acts, including doing EVERYTHING possible to destroy the USA.

They have been given breathing room, you see it with all of the Trump supporters around the USA not being in prison for their support of the Jan 6th insurrection.

The subsidies for buying an EV are gone now, due to Trump and his dislike of ANYTHING done by Obama or Biden. The loss of a $7500 subsidy on EVs would make many people decide not to go that route and to stick to a normal hybrid. We also have VERY high electric costs due to politicians being paid off by the oil industry, where even though we have domestic oil production, somehow, we pay the global price of oil for stuff that comes from government owned land. Trump is being paid off by EVERYONE, it's no secret, so he probably got bribed by one special interest or another, or maybe under orders of Putin.

People want Android to be free, but then, those who profit off of Android should somehow not have to pay in some way, shape, or form? A device maker like Samsung, is in the position where it's less expensive to just include the Google suite of apps than to play the game of releasing Android without the Google apps, but without the apps, then shouldn't Google get SOMETHING for the work that goes into new versions of Android? It's not realistic to expect phones to come as just an electronic device and for the public to treat it like Linux and install their own OS on it, configure it, adjust settings, install this and that application for what they want, and then figure out why things don't work due to some manufacturing defect.

So, developers want the free platform that they didn't create, but that isn't being subsidized in some way by government(s). Why would any corporation put in the resources without there being SOME payoff, especially when Europe keeps trying to find new ways to slap a lawsuit to get billions of dollars in "fines" from the company?

The article is about GENERAL performance, but then the contents are only about Photoshop performance. Supporting misleading claims is as bad as people who support the telling of outright lies by politicians.

Saying that a CHIP is faster, not as a special purpose chip, but for general use would make "in Photoshop" a misleading indicator of CPU performance. General purpose chips vs. special purpose chips. ARM vs. x86 is a valid comparison, but when you start looking at custom chips and then only being focused on performance in specific applications that take advantage of those custom chips, that eliminates the true, "which is the better overall processor, which has the best single threaded performance or multi-threaded" from being a proper comparison. It's like saying how poorly these Apple chips do in DirectX tests on a Mac, you would think that's not a fair thing, because Apple computers aren't running Windows.

If you missed it, there used to be an issue with video card drivers that would "cheat" in gaming benchmarks...same hardware, same OS, but, if you rename the game executable to something else, suddenly the game performance would be lower, just because of a different name. That showed things like "when we detect that you are running a certain game, we will reduce image quality to improve the performance", and that was an issue. Saying that overall single-threaded performance is better with the Apple chip is misleading, because it ONLY applies to Photoshop and programs coded specifically for the chip and OS, but doing it without being for photo editing would show the Apple chips aren't so much better than any other ARM chip.

It shouldn't be difficult to make it so existing files can not be modified by the AI. Read-only access for the AI would take care of a lot of this, then make it so you can change the stuff that the AI generated also be read-only to prevent the AI from breaking stuff you have decided to use and don't want it to be modified further by AI.

When Apple first started making their own chips, one of the big features were accelerators for various tasks. This makes the Apple chips less of a general purpose processor and more of a product with specific market focuses. The fact that Apple has control over iOS and MacOS also allows Apple to really push their accelerators and support for them in a way that Intel and AMD could not. When you see the performance of Photoshop on one of these new Macbooks, you see the results of having an ecosystem somewhat dedicated to making it perform better. Without being able to put the same version of Photoshop on there to see "without special Apple accelerators" support, saying that Apple chips overall have any advantage outside of specific programs, ends up being misleading.

Picture if all developers had adopted support for all of those new instruction sets that AMD and Intel had pushed out over the years, we would have seen higher performance as well. On top of that, having accelerators designed for specific applications is similar to the benchmark cheating, where the focus is on performance in specific applications, but if you rename the executable, you get lower performance due to "things are done differently, just for specific programs".

For those who use Photoshop, you can't really argue with the results, but when looking at the "CPU performance", comparing in-program or in-game benchmarks on different operating systems.

Yea, so Microsoft can make a point of not releasing games IT controls on PS? Sony can't demand that Microsoft release games for Playstation when it is blocking releasing games not even on Xbox, but for Windows?

LibreOffice has been able to open and save .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx files for AGES now. This entire "article" is talking about the user interface of the program, not about file formats. You can even set these formats as the default for saving files if you want.

I am seeing what has been going on in the USA, so it's easy to feel a bit broken these days.

I had the option to ignore it, so I did. Too many people can't wrap their heads around the difference between AI replacing humans when it comes to work, and AI also being a tool that humans can use.

There are a number of things that go into the process of creating "art", so the real issue at play is, "how much effort is put in by the human to come up with the AI generated output?". Isn't that how it works when someone writes something using the tools at their disposal? We take it for granted that a writer can use anything from pen or pencil to write, to a typewriter, to a word processor. But, then you add other tools, grammar checking for example, or even using AI to re-word something because the author doesn't like how something sounds that they wrote.

So, AI generated content for art, you can really go for really really basic stuff and have the AI do virtually all of the work, or, the human could start with something, then have AI work with what it has been fed, then the human could tweak with it some more, back and forth. The more work a human does to get the AI to output a final image, the more it feels like the final result could deserve a copyright. What we don't know is how much effort goes into the final result, in the same way if you took a generic stock photo, manipulate it in Photoshop, do all sorts of things to it and then end up with the final product that could then be worthy of a copyright, AI has the potential where it COULD be worthy of a copyright, it's just a bit too new of a subject for anyone to really be sure what is fair.